Electricity has well known limitations, mainly for bulk and long-range transport, industrial processes requiring high temperature heat, and the chemicals industry. To entirely replace fossil fuels we need hydrogen, say Frank Wouters and Prof. Dr. Ad van Wijk. It has an energy density comparable to hydrocarbons. There’s more: Europe’s electric grid can’t cope with 100% electrification, yet hydrogen would use the existing gas pipe networks. The authors lay out a plan to deliver 50% of Europe’s energy from hydrogen by 2050. Done rapidly at scale, hydrogen would soon be as cheap as gas. It will also make Europe the hydrogen market leader: what technologies Europe (or anywhere!) masters first, it can sell to the rest of the world hungry for clean energy solutions.
Electrification is one of the megatrends in the ongoing energy transition. Since 2011, the annual addition of renewable electricity capacity has outpaced the addition of coal, gas, oil and nuclear power plants combined, and this trend is continuing. Due to the recent exponential growth curve and associated cost reduction, solar and wind power on good locations are now often the lowest cost option, with production cost of bulk solar electricity in the sunbelt soon approaching the 1 $ct/kWh mark. However, electricity has limitations in industrial processes requiring high temperature heat, the chemicals industry or in bulk and long-range transport.
Green hydrogen made from renewable electricity and water will play a crucial role in our decarbonised future economy, as shown in many recent scenarios. In a system soon dominated by variable renewables such as solar and wind, hydrogen links electricity with industrial heat, materials such as steel and fertiliser, space heating, and transport fuels. Furthermore, hydrogen can be seasonally stored and can be transported cost-effectively over long distances, to a large extent using existing natural gas infrastructure. Green hydrogen in combination with green electricity has the potential to entirely replace hydrocarbons.
Energy demand in Europe
Europe is a net energy importer, with 54% of the 2016 energy needs met by imports, consisting of petroleum products, natural gas and solid fuels. Although Europe is working ambitiously to become less dependent on energy imports, it is unlikely that Europe can become entirely energy self-sufficient. Most scenarios, including BP’s Energy Outlook 2019[1] indicate that Europe shall remain a net importer of energy until mid-century and beyond.
Several recent scenarios exist for Europe’s energy system in 2050, including Shell’s Sky Scenario[2], The Hydrogen Roadmap for Europe[3], DNV-GL’s Energy Transition Outlook 2018[4] and the “Global Energy System based on 100% Renewable Energy – Power Sector” by the Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and the Energy Watch Group (EWG) [5]. But also, several renewable energy industry associations have assessed the role of renewable energy in the European energy mix by 2050, among which are EWEA[6] and GWEC[7]. Analysing and comparing these scenarios, an estimated 2,000 GW of solar and 650 GW of wind energy capacity is required to decarbonise Europe’s electricity sector by 2050, generating roughly 3,000 TWh of solar energy and 2,000 TWh of wind energy per year. Europe’s final energy demand in 2050 is estimated to be around 10,000 TWh and 50% would then be covered by electricity from solar and wind. In most scenarios, additional electricity is generated by nuclear and hydropower.
Final energy mix in Europe (2015). SOURCE: Eurostat
Hydrogen in Europe
Green hydrogen can be produced in electrolysers using renewable electricity, can be transported using the natural gas grid and can be stored in salt caverns and depleted gas fields[8] to cater for seasonal mismatches in supply and demand of energy. It should be noted that blue hydrogen, hydrogen produced from fossil fuels with CCS, can play an important role in an intermediate period, helping kickstart hydrogen as an energy carrier alongside the introduction of green hydrogen.
Using existing gas infrastructure
In Europe the lowest cost renewable resources are hydropower in Norway and the Alps, offshore wind in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, onshore wind in selected European areas, whereby the best solar resource is in Southern Europe. The current electricity grid was not built for this, is not fit for the energy transition and needs to be drastically modernised. In 2018, an estimated € 1 billion worth of offshore wind energy was curtailed in Germany due to insufficient transmission grid capacity.
In addition, the development of new renewable energy capacity is slowed down due to the lack of grid capacity. Unfortunately, overhead power lines are difficult to realise due to environmental concerns, popular opposition and typically take more than a decade for planning, permitting and construction. However, a gas grid is much more cost-effective than an electricity grid: for the same investment a gas pipe can transport 10-20 times more energy than an electricity cable. Also, Europe has a well-developed gas grid that can be converted to accommodate hydrogen at minimal cost. Recent studies carried out by DNV-GL[9] and KIWA[10] in the Netherlands concluded that the existing gas transmission and distribution infrastructure is suitable for hydrogen with minimal or no modifications.
So instead of transporting bulk electricity throughout Europe, a more cost-efficient way would be to transport green hydrogen and have a dual electricity and hydrogen distribution system. Picture 2 shows the existing European natural gas grid (blue) and a hydrogen backbone (orange) as suggested by Hydrogen Europe and Delft University.
Picture 2: Natural gas infrastructure in Europe (blue and red lines) and first outline for a hydrogen backbone infrastructure (orange lines) [Delft University of Technology, Hydrogen Europe, 40GW Electrolyser Initiative]
A different approach: top down, not bottom up
By 2050 when Europe’s electricity system is largely based on variable renewables, hydrogen is indispensable. Several scenarios have tried to estimate the increasing demand for hydrogen in Europe over time and all of them use a bottom-up approach. Although there is merit in this approach by applying industry’s collective knowledge and a deep-dive in these sectors, the fundamental flaw lies in the fact that at present there is no market for green hydrogen, and it is therefore very difficult to estimate e.g. adoption rates for fuel cell vehicles or the willingness among consumers to choose between green gas or all-electric solutions for their domestic energy needs.
A more ambitious approach based on infrastructure development is proposed, similar to the introduction of electricity or natural gas. The fundamental philosophy is to make green hydrogen available at scale and cost-effectively and replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible by repurposing the current natural gas infrastructure to carry green hydrogen. Since the transmission and distribution infrastructure is already to a large extent available, the focus can be on developing electrolyser capacity, which is an opportunity for European market leadership.
How much hydrogen do we need or want?
65% of Europe’s current final energy demand consists of gas, coal and petroleum products, which can all be replaced by hydrogen and electricity. We therefore propose a 50% share of green hydrogen in Europe’s final energy demand for all sectors: industry, transport, commercial and households. Of course, this is a rough estimate and will differ per sector and country. It is doable in the transport sector, achieving a balanced mix of battery electric mobility for shorter distances, combined with fuel cell vehicles for heavy duty, longer ranges and higher convenience.
Share of EU Final Energy use per sector (2017). SOURCE: Eurostat
Most industrial high heat demand, currently served by natural gas, can be provided by hydrogen, and the household sector will consist of a mix of all-electric well-insulated new houses, while a large part of the existing building stock can be heated using hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen gas boilers. Including the hydrogen required for power system balancing, this represents an overall hydrogen demand of 6,000 TWh/year, which can easily be accommodated by the European natural gas grid.
The green hydrogen will be produced by additional green electricity plants in Europe over and beyond the 2,000 GW solar and 650 GW wind capacity, in addition to blue hydrogen made from natural gas whilst capturing and storing the CO2. However, 50% of the demand will be imported from neighboring regions in North Africa and the Middle East where green hydrogen can be produced cheaply and transported through cost-effective pipelines. Additional green hydrogen can be imported in liquid or ammonia form from additional sources further away, like LNG nowadays. Europe’s import dependency will be roughly cut in half, and since hydrogen can be produced almost anywhere, the supply risk profile will be much improved.
Cost competitive hydrogen
Renewable electricity is rapidly becoming cheaper than conventional electricity made in nuclear, gas- or coal-fired power plants. If a market would develop along the lines sketched here, hydrogen can be produced at € 1 per kg, which is compatible with natural gas prices of €9/mmbtu. Since the energy content of 1 kg of hydrogen is equivalent to 3.8 litre of gasoline, it is certainly cheaper than gasoline or diesel at that price point. But the main advantage lies in the infrastructure, the proposed transition would to a large extent use the existing natural gas grid and would avoid an expensive and troublesome complete overhaul of the electricity grid.
Action agenda
A European energy system based on 50% green electricity and 50% green hydrogen as described above would have many advantages: reduced emissions, reduced price volatility, industrial opportunity, avoidance of stranding gas grid assets and increased resilience.
The following are necessary considerations for an action agenda:
- A strong, clear and lasting political commitment is necessary, embedded in a binding European strategy with clear goals stretching over several decades.
- A new type of public private partnership on a pan-European level must be crafted, with the aim to create an ecosystem to nurture a European clean energy industry that has the potential to be world leaders in the field. This partnership should include the existing energy industry, as well as innovative newcomers.
- A novel enabling regulatory environment and associated market design is required for the necessary investments, whilst keeping the system costs affordable.
This implies that Europe needs to:
- Develop a common internal market for hydrogen
- Develop an internal market for power to hydrogen, hydrogen to power and storage + flexibility
- Expand the public electricity infrastructure and make it fit for the 21st century
- Convert the public natural gas infrastructure into a public hydrogen infrastructure
- Develop large scale hydrogen storage facilities in salt caverns and depleted gas fields
- Expand large scale green electricity production through national and EU auctions for renewable electricity
- Stimulate large scale green hydrogen production through national and EU auctions for renewable hydrogen
- Until 2035: stimulate large scale blue hydrogen (hydrogen made from fossil fuels whereby the CO2 is captured and permanently stored) production through national and EU auctions in parallel to green hydrogen deployment
- Between 2035 and 2050: switch rapidly to a system 100% based on renewable electricity and green hydrogen.
- Develop a modern, innovative, competitive and world leading economy on green electricity and green hydrogen as energy carriers and feedstock.
***
Frank Wouters is a former Deputy Director-General at IRENA. For a full CV click here.
Prof. Dr. Ad van Wijk is sustainable energy entrepreneur and part-time Professor Future Energy Systems at TU Delft, the Netherlands. For a full CV click here.
CITATIONS:
- https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2019.pdf ↑
- https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/shell-scenario-sky.html ↑
- https://fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Hydrogen%20Roadmap%20Europe_Report.pdf ↑
- https://eto.dnvgl.com/2018/ ↑
- http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Full-Study-100-Renewable-Energy-Worldwide-Power-Sector.pdf ↑
- http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/position-papers/EWEA_2050_50_wind_energy.pdf ↑
- http://files.gwec.net/register?file=/files/GlobalWindEnergyOutlook2016 ↑
- https://forschung-energiespeicher.info/wind-zu-wasserstoff/projektliste/projekt-einzelansicht/74/Wasserstoff_unter_Tage_speichern/ (in German) ↑
- https://www.topsectorenergie.nl/sites/default/files/uploads/TKI%20Gas/publicaties/DNVGL%20rapport%20verkenning%20waterstofinfrastructuur_rev2.pdf (in Dutch) ↑
- KIWA – Toekomstbestendige gasdistributienetten – GT170227 (July 2018 – in Dutch) ↑
This proposal should be taken seriously. Some of its strong points are:
1. The dual supply system (electricity,gas) has major advantages for long term resilience. Building for the next one or two hundred years, we must assume that extreme events will occur. If transportation and heating were almost 100% dependent on electricity, a month-long electrical outage in the dead of winter (with ‘Dunkelflaute’) in northern Germany could be catastrophic.
2. It emphasizes interdependence in generation and consumption of electricity and gas. Although one can invent scenarios in which each nation is almost self-sufficient, they require massive overbuilds of wind and solar in countries such as Germany. It’s good to keep a substantial faction of the gas production where it is most efficient. It is certainly arguable that systems with multiple energy sources, multiple distribution paths, and distributed storage are as effective resilience solutions as would be self-sufficient feudal estates.
3. It de-emphasizes methanation. I am alarmed by suggestions for massive CO2 air capture facilities in the desert for methanation of locally produced hydrogen. Long distance transport of hydrogen, via pipelines or ammonia, is efficient and large-scale storage is practical (although less versatile than for hydrocarbons). There will undoubtedly be future roles for synthetic methane and liquid fuels, but it will usually be more efficient if we can use the hydrogen directly.
Hydrogen can be produced for the same cost as electricity, if a lot curtailment is applied and factored into our basic equation. So:
We have an electricity price of €30/MWh, which is at 50% capacity factor. We curtail 30% of the electricity, and provide it at zero cost to the electrolyser operator. This reduces the need for expensive grid infrastructure. This 30% curtailment can be added to another 30% of the RES output in order to increase the operational hours of the electrolyser. At a RES capacity factor of 50%, this works out as 15% curtailed + 15% peak, so only 30% CF for the electrolyser in total. This means a low electrolyser cost is needed (€300/kW is required). This process obviously adds to the electricity price; but reduces the need for electrical infrastructure. At €30/MWh using half curtailed electricity, a €30/MWh hydrogen price can be achieved. Electricity is then €40/MWh.
Why should long dictance electricity be a problem? We are not in the 1950’s any more.
China transports 12 GW electricity by 2 wires over a distance of 3284km (single system, point to point, so the whole distance – generation to consumption – is longer) by HVDC, and the developers of ABB and Siemens involved in supplying the syystems say this is the beginning, not the end of the technical development.
It will always be useful to have backup generation in a grid, in case a multitude of power lines fail (as well as it is useful to have a backup of oil and gas in case transportation fails e.g. due to a major war) , which could come from power to lequid (liquids are more easy to store than gas)
But building and maintaining a compete expensive second grid, which would usually fail at exactly the same times when the electricity grid fails (war etc.) does not seem to make any sense.
By the way, with strengthening the existing interconected Eurasian / african grids the symptom of “Dunkelflaute” vanishes. There is no time when there is no wind on the whole asiatic, european and african continents, and also the time when there is no sun is already quite short.
Dear Helmut,
Long distance electricity is certainly not a problem and catering for the increase from 20% to 50% share of electricity in the final energy mix requires huge investments in electricity T&D infrastructure expansion. The point we are making is that we already have an existing gas infrastructure we can use to transport hydrogen very cost-effectively over long distances. Please note that the 1GW BritNed cable between Holland and the UK cost about €500million, whereas the BBL pipeline between Europe and the UK cost the same, but is able to transport up to 20GW.
For me, it’s important to have a range of models that can be worked out in considerable detail and compared. The 50:50 proposal and a continental HVDC net with minimal gas distribution and storage are both useful extremae. An in-between example might be a system in which gas (such as H2) is distributed and stored for regional back-up generation but de-emphasized for personal transportation and single home heating. Important are not just the end systems, but also how we get there, which has immediate consequences; how hard should we be pushing on hydrogen technology development, or on heat pump conversion to replace gas?
I like the green hydrogen future. However what about the pumps in the pipelines to push hydrogen for such a long distance? Have we this kind of pumps? Apparently pumps in the existing gas network must be replace. Is this issue already solved?
Ferdinand,
these pumps exist for many decades. They are called reciprocating compressors since the hydrogen will be transported in a gas phase. Hydrogen compressors are used for decades in the (petro)chemical industry to compress hydrogen for ammonia production or hydrocrackers. The European compressor manufacturers are leading around the world in the area of hydrogen compression, such as NEA in Germany, Howden Thomassen in The Netherlands and Burckhardt Compression in Switserland and many others.
Rene Peters
Chairman of the European Forum for Reciprocating Compressors
Dear Ferdinand,
You are right that hydrogen requires different compressors, so they would need to be replaced in case an existing natural gas pipeline is converted. However, such compressors are available and there is currently a hydrogen pipeline network operational in Texas, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and France stretching several thousand kilometers.
I think the authors are “blended” by the current GreenEnergy hype and panic mode (“het vieste jongetje in de klas”) in the Netherlands and ignore the investments to be made in wind power to get to 130% renewable elctricity (NL is at less than 10%) before we can start using it at a large scale to convert power to hydrogen and so substitute fossil fuels. Directly using the Wind Power for battery EVs is at least twice if not triple as efficient as the conversion from power to chemicals to electricity to mobility. Of course when wind power peaks can be converted to hydrogen for storage and conversion at lows, taht makes sense and yes we could use exisitng gas pipes. But even in germany where Wind Power is a major contributor less than 1% of such power can not be transporetd due to the “electric grid collapsing”.
I did my own math in 2004 and I have since not seen serious calculations showing that a full electrification of traffic would lead to collapse the electric grid. The efficiency of the electric grid and conversion to mobility does lead to a reduction in the primary energy demand.
Also I suggest to contact the scientist at the TU Vienna, who recently devoted a “Energiegespräche” to 150 years hydrogene and why it has not become a wide spread energy carrier. The current discussion reminds me of the hype in 2004-2008. BMW stopped its then hydrogen car project and developed since the i3 and i8 cars, which are at least in the 10.000s rather than the 10s on the road..
Even scientists and professional advisors can be carried away by the hype and energy panic.
Regards,
Reynier Funke
I think it would not be fair to say that there is any hype around the need for a large amount of hydrogen.
If we look at the four main sectors; electricity, transport, industry and heating, we can see that for large parts of these sectors there is no alternative to hydrogen. Electricity cannot be stored for winter, and it cannot be dispatched on demand, without hydrogen. Long -distance transport and high-utilisation transport (road freight, emergency vehicles, shipping, etc) cannot rely on batteries, and indeed if they attempted to draw large amounts of power at one go, for trucks this would equal 1MW per truck, meaning anything over 100 trucks would require gas peaking power to supply demand, and this is up to €150/MWh or more; many at the same time very much could cripple an electricity grid. Industries such as steel and concrete require very high temperatures which cannot be provided by electricity. Concrete and steel make up 50% of industry energy use alone, and will use hydrogen exclusively (all major steel producers in Europe have plans to follow this path, with pilots up and running in most cases), in combination with low-cost CCS for cement and lime process emissions (a cement consortium has a pilot running for this). Heating uses many times more energy than the electric grid can handle, and usually only for a few weeks. If every house was to be refitted for low temperature heating, this could cost €20k per house for much of the older building stock, which makes up 40% of houses in most countries, or more. This is not feasible, and is reflected in consumer choices.
So we can see that despite the apparent simplicity of trying to electrify everything – it cannot be done. There is no alternative to hydrogen.
Your figure of ‘1% before the grid collapses’ in Germany conflicts with the article above and with various other reports; and indeed a recent DNV GL study puts the level of curtailment in the UK at 30% by 2030, if no alternatives can be found. The recent CCC report in the UK also confirms this.
In fact, every report on the subject arrives at the same conclusion: we need *a lot* of hydrogen.
Just as a brief summary of these reports, and some figures: The 2019 ‘Gas for Climate’ report by Navigant has doubled its 2018 figures; citing a 2600TWh of renewable hydrogen needed by 2050. This is 50% of today’s gas demand in Europe which is 5000TWh, although the 2600TWh is complemented by green hydrogen imports and also blue hydrogen (pre-combustion carbon captured with dedicated CO2 pipeline – which are already in planning with funding within the CEF budget). All other reports carry the same argument: Pöyry, KPMG, E4Tech, Policy Exchange, Frontier Economics etc. In fact, Pöyry puts the figure saved by 2050 at €1150bn for decarbonising the gas network rather than electrifying everything; which is the same approximate cost as building 2600TWh (600GW) of offshore wind and electrolysing it [KNect365 – How can Europe’s gas networks be decarbonised?].
Yet another article summarises this very concisely; this time from financial services and consultancy EY – this time with a focus on RES-based rather than blue hydrogen. This underscores the CCC report which makes the case unequivocal – hydrogen is the only option for the UK, and must be implemented; although where this hydrogen comes from is the issue – and I would say this will depend on the resource profile of each specific country.
Hello Mr Reynier
No issue with electrical / battery mobility ? I did my math on the french case,and I am a bit doubtful:
If you take 40 mio individual cars in France today. Let’s take only 50% => 20 mio cars becoming electrical.
Imagine a connection to reload them in 2 hours / for 200 km of autonomy (it is not excessive) => 15 kW electrical connections. Imagine all this cars need to reload in the same period …
20 mio cars time 15 kW = 300 GW. Noting the historical peak consumption in France (in wintertime) is 100 GW and the capacity available in summertime is lower. So, you will need to queue to reload your car …
And of course, because you wont reload your car directly connected to VHV grid … you will first explode the distribution capabilities in our country.
What is wrong in my basic calculation ?
Best regards
Olivier Maigrot
I do not want to be overly critical of the EV infrastructure cost element; although perhaps the corner for hydrogen needs slightly more defense.
However a 15kW connection means a lot of new infrastructure and substations, and as a German article outlines, the cost of electrical infrastructure could easily exceed the cost of adding a hydrogen pump to a petrol station.
[linkedin .com/pulse/hitchhikers-guide-e-mobility-part-2-infrastructure-battery-blandow/]
The main problem that usually comes to my mind is the availability of materials for battery production (VW are already running into problems, as are other automakers as the supply chain for materials does not yet exist and is constrained even with optimistic assumptions); and the intrinsic energy cost of processing these materials which does not produce very high returns.
In comparison, fuel cell vehicles (such as the Michelin-Faurecia JV; Symbio – with its infrastructure network backed by EDF and subsidiaries Hynamics & McPhy) – are much lower cost to manufacture at scale, and do not suffer from a fossil-grid based charging network as hydrogen is stored rather than necessitating ongoing drawdown from the grid.
We need to push the hydrogen agenda because steel and concrete require high temperatures, and shipping/aviation will also require fuel rather than battery packs.
Dear Mr. Maigret
20 million cars, assuming 15.000 km/a and 15 km/litre means about 1000 litre/a. With 10 kWh/litre this corresponds to 10 MWh/a/car, 20 million cars make 200 TWh/a of primary energy, of which max. 30% is actually used in mobility (60 TWh/a). The advantage of electrical drive is the efficiency, say 80% gets converted from electrical energy into mobility. I.e. instead of 200 TWh about 60 TWh /80% means a demand from the grid of 75 TWh of electricity annually. Current French electricity production is about 550 MWh. I.e. supplying the 20 million cars means an increase in production of 13,6%, the full 40 million cars then means about 30% increase, the number I found in my 2004-2005 mathematics.
Yes, there is a problem with peak load, but why do the cars need to be charged in 2 hours at 20:00 h (300 GW load)? Taking 10 hours (60 GW load) during the night does the job, the grid can cope as other loads are low in the night, and the slow charging is better for the batteries. Also installing batteries at the charging stations can reduce the peak load.
Ofcourse there shall also be incentives to charge or not charge at peak/low demand hours. My personal experience here in rural Bavaria at the very end of the grid, is that the local grid operator is not interested in that. My heating pump, 6,5 kW load, switches on/off whenever heat demand requires it, although I could buffer the heat at a loss of efficiency. However after multiple requests, the incentive is less than 1 cts/kWh, which for 4000 kWh/a for heat pump does not really matter (40 €/yr). Certainly not when due to heat storage a less efficient heat usage may mean 10% heat loss. So I have decided not to do anything, except in the future installing PV/battery system to get the electricity costs down to 20 instead of 30 cts/kWh (for green electricity from Naturstrom AG). With in this area 10 to 20% of the roofs having PV already, the battery additions are in big demand and will then also reduce the grid issue to become manageable. In cities this can be done by the grid operator by centrally placed batteries. Yes there is an invest to be made, but it is smaller than stated, and certainly smaller than the investments in Hydrogen, where the conversion from electrical power to mobility will not get close to the 80% possible with batteries.
The Hydrogen discussion in my opinion is driven by on the one hand occasional overproduction of windpower in Germany, which due to legislation has to be paid for. Obviously there conversions even at poor efficiency can make sense. Scaling that up to a Hydrogen based energy infrastructure is a strech and less efficient then electrical power to mobility. And as I stated in reaction tot his article earlier, the hype around hydrogen is driven by poor policy making in Germany as well in the Netherlands (panic mode, due to natural gas decline and less than 10% energy from renewables), not by a convincing efficient and clean energy concept. The history of Hydrogen, more than 100 years, shows it is not as easy as it sounds in the “manifesto”.
Regards
Reynier Funke
Gruess Gott Herr Funke,
Fully in line with the first part of your analysis: no problem in energy only a problem in capacity (peak). Electricity has no intrinsec value, the importance is only when it is consume (not storable).
About waiting for off peak period: not working for a long range mobility ( if you need to gros France or Germany, would you accept to wait for 10 or 12 hours every 200 km? It is a joke).
I do not have the stats for French users, but a significant part of their use for cars is for vacation or long range dirve, concentrated in the same period (some weeks in July and August, and some week in February for winter sports vacation)
I do not think battery could represent a solution for such need. It is not too costly, it is simply not providing the service requested.
A simple proof of the fact that people are not so patient and not ready to wait 12 hours in the middle of their roadtrip: Tesla is investing a lot in fast charger (meaning high capacity charger), which will increase the capacity and voltage of connection !
So you will have two categories in the population: the rich users, with Tesla and fast chargers, which will pay to avoid to wait, and the poor users (or not so rich), using for instance Renault or VW, and who will wait 12 hours to get their car reloaded.
Interesting … Not a dream !
About distribution capability: in France there are today enough capapabilities to supply 60 GW of global consumption from distributed consumers (not speaking about consumption connected directly in VHV) . Even with your 12 hours reloading, you simply need to double the distribution capabilities of our country, meaning also a tremendous financial and environmental impact. Who will pay?
There are a lot of other post about the tremendous volume of batteries (and rare earth) needed, I will not comment about it.
Batteries as the only source of electrical mobility, with the technical knowledge of today, will put us in a dead end, and I suspect the oil lobby to be behind (because such dead end, well known by the power distribution companies, will bring us back to “good old carbon intensive ” solutions .
All the previous lines are only reflecting my personal thinking and calculation, based on my personal experience in power management and as a car driver in France. I have regularly used electrical vehicules with batteries in Paris area during more than 5 years (and diesel engine during far more than that !!!). I have unfortunately rarely used hydrogen car (but I have the opportunity to test them a couple of time in Denmark). I repsect different points of view, but I am a strong defender of diversity of clean solution for mobility (as for power generation) convinced that defending only one filiere is the worst possible choice (whatever is the filiere !!!).
Mit freundlichen Gruessen
Olivier MAIGROT
We agree technically it is possible, but our “lust” for convenience makes it unacceptable to charge in 80% oof the cases overnight? Let people pay for when they charge, the rich ones can afford to pay more. Is that outrageous? Lastly, I just read a publication in the “Ingenieur”, published by KiVI, the royal dutch engineering association, illustrating that the electricity produced and then used in a hydrogen car brings the car only 1/3 of the distance a battery full lectric car achieves.
Let’s first produce and distribute the renewable electrical power before daydreaming about hydrogen and wasting the little renewable elctrical power we produce in Europe. The hydrogen is hyped for the reason I mentioned in my first comment. But the hype does not make sense when we look at how renewable elctrical power gets used in hydrogen cars.
Regards
Reynier Funke
The issue is that electricity is costly to transport and cannot be stored. Europe uses as much gas as it does electricity; and in many cases (high temperature industry heat, long distance transport, seasonal heating and dispatchable power such as gas turbines) there is no possibility of switching to electricity.
The issue with cost is that electrolysis is 80% efficient, but this is a minor issue, if we consider the cost of vastly expanding a HVDC network just to accommodate renewables.
Hydrogen can be produced at lower cost than the electricity used to create it – because the cost can be transferred to the electricity price with a reduction in electrical infrastructure. In fact, using one third the HVDC capacity, we have a much reduced electricity cost that can be supplied to electrolysis, and then fed to a gas network which is cheap (as the article explains).
Below is the methodology to produce low cost hydrogen by transferring this cost to the electricity price, to correctly take into account the additional electrical infrastructure that would otherwise be required:
Hydrogen for €29.7/MWH can be achieved with a RES cost of €40/MWh and a 50% CF. RES is curtailed (at a rate of 30%) to provide electricity at zero cost, while 30% is charged at peak rate. This results in 30% utilisation rate of the electrolyser (50% x 60%), which is charged at half the peak rate (€20/MWh). The electricity cost is increased by 30%.
RES cost: €20/MWh
Hydrogen conversion: €4/MWh (80% eff.)
Electrolyser cost per MWh:
[30% utilisation rate – 50% x 60%
2628 hours x 20 years – 52,560 hours
Electrolyser capex – €300 per kW
€300 / 52,560] = €5.7/MWh
Hydrogen cost: €29.7/MWh (€9/mmbtu or €1/kg)
There is really no other option if we want to integrate very large amounts of renewables, such as offshore wind. The grid infrastructure is already at capacity. So transferring some of the cost of conversion to the electricity price makes economic sense – there is no choice.
All gas turbines in the EU are being converted to hydrogen, either via new models or retrofits. Four major steel companies are converting to hydrogen. Fuel cell production is being dramatically scaled up – a Chinese company has announced plans to manufacture 400,000 fuel cell vehicles starting in 2022. So there is definitely demand for hydrogen – and this demand needs to be met.
What if we pull high tension electricity cables, such as DC undersea cables, in the existing gas pipes. So those gas pipes then transport gas and electricity.
It would avoid near all NIMBY.
There should be space enough in existing gas pipes as gas consumption is decreasing.
And those electricity cables are more safe inside a gas pipe for intruders, than buried or hanging in the air…
It requires narrow cooperation between the gas and electricity transporters.
Should be no problem in NL and part of Germany as both (Tennet and Gasunie) are owned by the govt.
So why not??