The Energy Transition and technologies

[Street Pharmacist]

Despite the fairly large losses in using hydrogen as grid storage, it makes more sense than trying to transport it for other uses.

[Fuzz]

I dunno, this seems like a plan to greenwash their electricity production by selling "green" hydrogen while ignoring the fact that coal is a huge part of their grid, and more coal will have to be burned to make up for the losses from green hydrogen production. I don't really think you can hive off stuff like this, call it green, and pretend you have done good. It only makes sense if this would be completely wasted electricity, but even then battery storage makes more sense.

[peter12]

Man, I am agreeing with Fuzz a lot in this thread.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno, this seems like a plan to greenwash their electricity production by selling "green" hydrogen while ignoring the fact that coal is a huge part of their grid, and more coal will have to be burned to make up for the losses from green hydrogen production. I don't really think you can hive off stuff like this, call it green, and pretend you have done good. It only makes sense if this would be completely wasted electricity, but even then battery storage makes more sense.

As I understand it - the goal is to lower the cost of green hydrogen so it becomes cost friendly with gas, etc. EV's, don't make as much sense in a place where most of the electricity comes from coal so hydrogen vehicles may make more sense there.

I also assume because labour is cheap there and they have a ton of sun - if they can crack the code - they can create more of this stuff/cheaper than most countries. If green hydrogen becomes a big fuel of the future - being the cheapest and most abundant source of it in Asia would be a boon for their economy.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno, this seems like a plan to greenwash their electricity production by selling "green" hydrogen while ignoring the fact that coal is a huge part of their grid, and more coal will have to be burned to make up for the losses from green hydrogen production. I don't really think you can hive off stuff like this, call it green, and pretend you have done good. It only makes sense if this would be completely wasted electricity, but even then battery storage makes more sense.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding on how this works or is proposed to work.

The Mission will result in the following likely outcomes by 2030:

Development of green# hydrogen production capacity of at least 5 MMT (Million Metric Tonne) per annum with an associated renewable energy capacity addition of about 125 GW in the country

That's from the article, those 125 GW of renewable energy production will absolutely displace coal production. The green hydrogen comes in when the renewables are generating in excess of demand. That excess power is going to be diverted to an electrolyzer to make hydrogen for use at a later time. It equally could be sent to a battery storage facility. The issue with batteries is what do you do with excess power once those batteries are full. It's much easier and cheaper to add incremental hydrogen storage than adding batteries.

I don't see where greenwashing comes in, unless I'm missing something you are trying to say.

Personally, I'm a believer in hydrogen as fuel for long haul trucking to replace diesel engines.

[Fuzz]

I dunno, I think you are imagining a system that might exist, I don't see any words there that say what you are saying. What I see is they want to add a bunch of renewables, and use all that generation to make hydrogen, while continuing to use coal for the rest of the needs of the country. They have a massive need for clean energy in the country, so dedicating green energy to hydrogen seems silly. Financially I don't doubt it will make them money, but I don't see it being a net benefit to the environment, and I'm with you that hydrogen looks to be a good fuel for long haul trucking.

If somewhere like Iceland wanted to do this with geothermal, that would make all the sense in the world, because they have near endless supplies, it's green, and the alternative isn't coal.

[photon]

I understood it as using hydrogen as a battery rather than a typical battery.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Man, I am agreeing with Fuzz a lot in this thread.

Is that noteworthy?

[Fuzz]

Again, it doesn't say anything about that. It says

The aim of the funding initiative is “to make green hydrogen affordable and bring down its cost over the next five years. It will also help India reduce its emissions and become a major exporter in the field,” said Anurag Thakur, India’s minister for information and broadcasting.

I think the "reduce emissions" is hogwash for reasons I've explained. Which leaves them being an exporter. This is a profit centre using renewables so they call it green, while that power would be better used to replace coal. Unless this hydrogen is going to replace something dirtier.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Man, I am agreeing with Fuzz a lot in this thread.

That’s probably because in this instance Fuzz is not correct

[Fuzz]

That's about the most convincing argument I've heard yet! Peter agrees, so maybe I am wrong here...

[opendoor]

I don't know, I've read a few articles on it and nothing I've seen points to it being a case where they're specifically planning on using excess renewable generation to produce hydrogen. It sounds more like they're proposing subsidizing purpose-built generation to get the costs of hydrogen production down.

That said, that doesn't mean it won't reduce emissions. There are some industries (particularly heavy industry) that can't viability use utility-provided electricity for good chunk of their operations, whereas green hydrogen could conceivably fill that need. And long term, once the infrastructure is in place to produce hydrogen cheaply and more renewables come on line, hydrogen absolutely could be used as a store of power (though the end-to-end efficiency is pretty miserable).

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't know, I've read a few articles on it and nothing I've seen points to it being a case where they're specifically planning on using excess renewable generation to produce hydrogen.

Yeah, India despite have the same population as China only uses about 1/5 of the electricity. They're not really in the position to have excess electricity, anything they generate could be used immediately.

It sounds more like they're proposing subsidizing purpose-built generation to get the costs of hydrogen production down.

Usually I think of these projects as ways to fool politicians into spending money on pie-in-the-sky projects that just make a small select group of people wealthy with contracts for demos and consulting fees.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't know, I've read a few articles on it and nothing I've seen points to it being a case where they're specifically planning on using excess renewable generation to produce hydrogen.

That's the only use case that currently exists for pairing renewable generation and electrolyzers.

The economics aren't there for using it to purely produce green hydrogen.

Iberdrola out of Spain is on the leading edge of these systems. I fully expect renewable companies to jump all over hydrogen as it offers them a form of arbitrage they currently don't have access to as they can't set an offer price for electricity.

Most, if not all, of the renewable generation projects in Alberta have a battery storage component now. That's new in the past two years. I wouldn't be surprised to see them including some form of hydrogen storage/generator in the near term (<5 years).

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno, I think you are imagining a system that might exist, I don't see any words there that say what you are saying.

I dunno, I think you are assuming incompetence/speciousness based on an article that has like 10 sentences.

I'm sure there is probably some optimistic spin here, but I'm not sure there's any reason to assume it's a boondoggle from our armchairs 12000 kms away.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno, I think you are imagining a system that might exist, I don't see any words there that say what you are saying. What I see is they want to add a bunch of renewables, and use all that generation to make hydrogen, while continuing to use coal for the rest of the needs of the country. They have a massive need for clean energy in the country, so dedicating green energy to hydrogen seems silly. Financially I don't doubt it will make them money, but I don't see it being a net benefit to the environment, and I'm with you that hydrogen looks to be a good fuel for long haul trucking.

If somewhere like Iceland wanted to do this with geothermal, that would make all the sense in the world, because they have near endless supplies, it's green, and the alternative isn't coal.

I still think you're missing the point. This is explicitly designed to create markets for hydrogen in the future. It's debatable whether hydrogen is the panacea for emissions reductions some are claiming, but this has nothing to do with pre 2030 and even that is early for what they're trying to accomplish. It's more an economic bet than a green wash.

Many countries are doing similar things (China, EU, US, Canada, many African nations, etc). If you can push the growth of a nascent industry such that scale leads to cost reductions that trigger profitability, then you've steered the industry towards your country. If they plan on getting off of coal and being net zero by 2070, they absolutely need to start building those industries now.

Would you suggest they wait? What happens when China and the west hold all of the industry for hydrogen production and you're starting from zero when you actually can start using it? This is a 2B bet on creating an industry that will be important globally in the future. It's a 2B bet from the world's (soon to be) largest country by population and they'll need an economy.

[Fuzz]

Right, so it's an economic bet, not so much the best environmental choice.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Right, so it's an economic bet, not so much the best environmental choice.

What would be the best environmental choice?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Right, so it's an economic bet, not so much the best environmental choice.

And economics is what is going to reduce environmental damage not making the best environmental choices.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Right, so it's an economic bet, not so much the best environmental choice.

Yes and no. Depends on the timeframe and the data you're looking at, and the specific use cases. I'd definitely agree with your argument for the right now and the use in India where they are at. That is a much different argument though if were talking about beyond 2030/2035 when they plan on transitioning using hydrogen as a carrier. That would absolutely be a good environmental choice if hydrogen ends up scaling and working as some suggest

The point I'm making is: if they don't invest now, they'll have a much harder time later when it will/may be better for the environment. This investment at current costs is a drop in the bucket and not meant to scale for now while their energy mix/production is challenged. It's a seed to grow the industry so they can be a global player later when they think it is going to be important. Overall, it's too small an investment to change anything in the mix now