Hydrogen

[Garpal Gumnut]

I feel I need to get up to speed with Hydrogen and Hydrogen related stocks both on the ASX and in overseas markets.

It is somewhat of a black hole in my knowledge

Could any ASF members appraise me of its present state as a future green fuel, as an investment , and that of the attendant stocks which may benefit from its use as fuel and in industry generally.

gg

 

[Dona Ferentes]

From a year ago

National Hydrogen Roadmap - CSIRO

www.csiro.au

 

[Muchado]

Ideally we want green hydrogen (from renewable energy) not blue hydrogen (from gas). With the LNPs "gas led recovery" plan I think we will be hearing a lot more about blue hydrogen.

Europe’s Green Hydrogen Revolution Is Turning Blue

With the EU on the cusp of announcing its long-term hydrogen strategy, a huge question remains: Should blue hydrogen be excluded?

www.google.com

 

[qldfrog]

Ideally we want green hydrogen (from renewable energy) not blue hydrogen (from gas). With the LNPs "gas led recovery" plan I think we will be hearing a lot more about blue hydrogen.

Europe’s Green Hydrogen Revolution Is Turning Blue

With the EU on the cusp of announcing its long-term hydrogen strategy, a huge question remains: Should blue hydrogen be excluded?

www.google.com

Hydrogen once again:
follow the narrative, not the figures or facts:
Currently most of the hydrogen is actually coming from fossil fuel.aka fracking hydrocarbon style.
This remains the cheapest way to get it, not hydrolysis.
So either facts will not matter and you will see wpl and similar becoming main hydrogen plays they can add a veneer of carbon capture and similar BS to become Greta proof

If we are co2 serious, then hydrolysis and cheap green power is the way to go:
Solar plus water we got some but not always ideal location then transport..wire as power till plant by port.so maybe reusing some of the gas trains infrastructure in CQ and NQ: docks and port etc
Other way to tackle this would be the minerals used in the cathode and anode for hydrolysis.I suspect not your usual iron ore, lastly:
New tanks will be required, and this is ,due to size ,a relatively export protected industry so local tank manufacturers could benefit
Happy to discuss, just throwing some ideas to benefit from the reset

 

[sptrawler]

New tanks will be required, and this is ,due to size ,a relatively export protected industry so local tank manufacturers could benefit
Happy to discuss, just throwing some ideas to benefit from the reset

Building these massive solar/ wind farm and electrolysers in the middle of nowhere, someone will make a fortune selling donga's, to house the contractors.
Then there will be only certain companies, that can afford to gear up to carry the liquid H2, it will either have to be piped or trucked out.

 

[So_Cynical]

Gas can be manufactured, blue Hydrogen can be green if the gas comes from methane, sewerage and organic waste.

 

[rederob]

Building these massive solar/ wind farm and electrolysers in the middle of nowhere, someone will make a fortune selling donga's, to house the contractors.
Then there will be only certain companies, that can afford to gear up to carry the liquid H2, it will either have to be piped or trucked out.

Piping hydrogen to all mainland capital cities and beyond becomes a doddle as APA's existing network could add 10% hydrogen without any technical impediments, and solar-based electolysers could be built near many country population centres.

 

[qldfrog]

Gas can be manufactured, blue Hydrogen can be green if the gas comes from methane, sewerage and organic waste.

true, but things in perspective as always..yes you can, but how much h2 can you theorically get from these organic waste assuming you manage to use 100% of these.I do not even need to check
so back to giant solar plant and water or fracking oil and gas

 

[basilio]

Hazar HZR is the most visible company attempting to make hydrogen an economic reality.
Its process could be a world changer...

There is also Leigh Creek.

Hydrogen: an expensive bomb or a multi-billion dollar opportunity?

Australia’s chief scientist Alan Finkel describes hydrogen as “Australia’s next multi-billion dollar export opportunity’’ – and judging from two recent equity raisings, investors are willing to back the future of the earth’s most abundant element as a clean energy source.

smallcaps.com.au

hazergroup.com.au | Commercialising the Hazer Process

hazergroup.com.au

 

[wayneL]

I'm by no means an expert, but as I understand it, hydrogen is problematic to store. Being the smallest molecule, it leaks through steel, and in doing so, makes the steel brittle.

Can anyone confirm or debunk?

 

[qldfrog]

I'm by no means an expert, but as I understand it, hydrogen is problematic to store. Being the smallest molecule, it leaks through steel, and in doing so, makes the steel brittle.

Can anyone confirm or debunk?

You are right,if you go back a couple of years, you will find posts from me about that: things like h2 car or trucks are pipe dreams as would be super leaky, and imagine an underground car park....
So fixed installation and h2 used as a battery overnight sure but otherwise, forget it..

 

[Country Lad]

I'm by no means an expert, but as I understand it, hydrogen is problematic to store. Being the smallest molecule, it leaks through steel, and in doing so, makes the steel brittle.

Can anyone confirm or debunk?

Hydrogen Embrittlement of Steel

 

[sptrawler]

They are definitely working on the problem, but as frog says a long way to go.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrogen-storage-gets-real/3010794.article

A bit of Australian ingenuity?

Australian invented hydrogen storage for homes and businesses hits the market

UNSW spin-off announces that it will start taking orders for one of the world’s first hydrogen based energy storage systems for homes and businesses.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[Smurf1976]

There's multiple sets of issues with hydrogen:

First is the market in the context of large scale production for trade.

There's always been use of hydrogen for industrial purposes but generally that has been produced on site either from electrolysis (for small amounts) or natural gas (large volumes).

In the context of using it as a fuel though, the market itself is uncertain given alternatives of the use of electricity directly or via batteries or using synthetic fuels.

Electric trains exist and are widely used. Hydrogen trains have been built but aren't common. Synthetic fuel could certainly be done.

Battery powered buses have been built. Hydrogen also have been built. Synthetic fuel's also an option.

And so on. How we're actually going to move trains, ships, aircraft and even buses in the future is not yet resolved, there's more than one alternative method in the mix and in some cases they directly compete. Pretty much any rail line can be electrified if we really want to for example, any use of hydrogen to power trains is competing against other ways of moving a train.

High grade industrial heat likewise. Hydrogen versus electric arc furnaces. Then there's induction heating and for lower intensity uses simple electric resistance heating.

Even residential and general commercial use there are uncertainties as to what future role gas networks will really play. Some will argue none, we're going fully electric, but there's a lot of detail issues with that in itself. Dead easy in some places, far harder in others. Go to Europe with its high density living, limited capacity electrical networks and hydronic systems designed for high temperature water and retaining reticulated gas in some form looks relatively attractive.

Something to note there is that the technically (engineering) best solution isn't necessarily the most practical in other ways. From a technical efficiency perspective the use of electricity wins over hydrogen but the commercial outcome may well be very different, technical efficiency isn't always the best way once other factors are included and there are countless examples of that throughout the economy.

When it comes to anyone trying to put figures on the size of the market at this point in time, at best they're basing it on an assumed scenario as to which technologies win out and are actually adopted or they're talking only about one specific buyer not the market overall. At worst they're just plucking numbers out of the air.

On the production side well hydrogen is an element and the product is the same regardless of how it's obtained. Electrolysis of water or reforming of fossil fuels or biomass (especially natural gas - CH4) produce the same end product.

How to produce it is a question of resources, economics, environmental issues and politics. From a technical perspective the end product's the same regardless.

Electricity as the source:

Electricity from whatever source + water > electrolysis > hydrogen and by-product oxygen. The oxygen if not wanted can be simply released to the atmosphere.

Natural gas as the source:

Natural gas (methane, CH4) + steam (H2O) at ~850'C under pressure reacts to produce hydrogen (H) and carbon monoxide (CO). Or to be more precise CH4 + H2O > CO + 3H2

Then CO from the first step + steam (H20) under pressure is reacted to produce hydrogen (H) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Or to be more precise CO + H20 > CO2 + H2

This process can be modified slightly to work with other hydrocarbon feedstocks such as ethanol and oil-based liquids.

Coal as the source:

Coal + Oxygen (O2) + steam (H20) > carbon monoxide (CO) + carbon dioxide (CO2) + hydrogen (H2).

Then second step with the CO + steam as per the process to produce hydrogen from natural gas.

Production from hydrocarbons produces a concentrated CO2 waste stream. Since this is concentrated it would be straightforward to simply inject that into a depleted gas reservoir rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. That's unlike, say, the comparatively very dilute CO2 exhausted from the stack at a power station which is technically extremely problematic to capture and store.

Which brings me to the elephant sitting in the driveway:

Politics.

It's not my intention to make a political comment as such but it has to be said. In the Australian context, anything relating to energy production and use is the issue politically. This is a country where we choose our Prime Minister based on their ideas about power generation - a situation that even those in the industry mostly seem to think has gone way too far and they've heard quite enough of but it's reality.

Then there's controversy over natural gas supplies to south-eastern Australia, gas exports from other states, how to supply oil so long as we're still using it and so on.

Plus in some states water itself is subject to much the same politics with all manner of arguments, some true but many false.

I mention that because it seems rather likely that hydrogen will end up being caught up in all that indeed it involves the whole lot. It's a gas made from electricity and water - that ticks a lot of boxes on the tribal politics checklist.

I'd be very cautious in investing for that reason. You don't want to join the now rather long list of those who've got it right technically and economically but come unstuck politically when it comes to something involving energy.

Research the company and its projects very carefully and consider any political implications is my opinion there.

 

[qldfrog]

There's multiple sets of issues with hydrogen:

First is the market in the context of large scale production for trade.

There's always been use of hydrogen for industrial purposes but generally that has been produced on site either from electrolysis (for small amounts) or natural gas (large volumes).

In the context of using it as a fuel though, the market itself is uncertain given alternatives of the use of electricity directly or via batteries or using synthetic fuels.

Electric trains exist and are widely used. Hydrogen trains have been built but aren't common. Synthetic fuel could certainly be done.

Battery powered buses have been built. Hydrogen also have been built. Synthetic fuel's also an option.

And so on. How we're actually going to move trains, ships, aircraft and even buses in the future is not yet resolved, there's more than one alternative method in the mix and in some cases they directly compete. Pretty much any rail line can be electrified if we really want to for example, any use of hydrogen to power trains is competing against other ways of moving a train.

High grade industrial heat likewise. Hydrogen versus electric arc furnaces. Then there's induction heating and for lower intensity uses simple electric resistance heating.

Even residential and general commercial use there are uncertainties as to what future role gas networks will really play. Some will argue none, we're going fully electric, but there's a lot of detail issues with that in itself. Dead easy in some places, far harder in others. Go to Europe with its high density living, limited capacity electrical networks and hydronic systems designed for high temperature water and retaining reticulated gas in some form looks relatively attractive.

Something to note there is that the technically (engineering) best solution isn't necessarily the most practical in other ways. From a technical efficiency perspective the use of electricity wins over hydrogen but the commercial outcome may well be very different, technical efficiency isn't always the best way once other factors are included and there are countless examples of that throughout the economy.

When it comes to anyone trying to put figures on the size of the market at this point in time, at best they're basing it on an assumed scenario as to which technologies win out and are actually adopted or they're talking only about one specific buyer not the market overall. At worst they're just plucking numbers out of the air.

On the production side well hydrogen is an element and the product is the same regardless of how it's obtained. Electrolysis of water or reforming of fossil fuels or biomass (especially natural gas - CH4) produce the same end product.

How to produce it is a question of resources, economics, environmental issues and politics. From a technical perspective the end product's the same regardless.

Electricity as the source:

Electricity from whatever source + water > electrolysis > hydrogen and by-product oxygen. The oxygen if not wanted can be simply released to the atmosphere.

Natural gas as the source:

Natural gas (methane, CH4) + steam (H2O) at ~850'C under pressure reacts to produce hydrogen (H) and carbon monoxide (CO). Or to be more precise CH4 + H2O > CO + 3H2

Then CO from the first step + steam (H20) under pressure is reacted to produce hydrogen (H) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Or to be more precise CO + H20 > CO2 + H2

This process can be modified slightly to work with other hydrocarbon feedstocks such as ethanol and oil-based liquids.

Coal as the source:

Coal + Oxygen (O2) + steam (H20) > carbon monoxide (CO) + carbon dioxide (CO2) + hydrogen (H2).

Then second step with the CO + steam as per the process to produce hydrogen from natural gas.

Production from hydrocarbons produces a concentrated CO2 waste stream. Since this is concentrated it would be straightforward to simply inject that into a depleted gas reservoir rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. That's unlike, say, the comparatively very dilute CO2 exhausted from the stack at a power station which is technically extremely problematic to capture and store.

Which brings me to the elephant sitting in the driveway:

Politics.

It's not my intention to make a political comment as such but it has to be said. In the Australian context, anything relating to energy production and use is the issue politically. This is a country where we choose our Prime Minister based on their ideas about power generation - a situation that even those in the industry mostly seem to think has gone way too far and they've heard quite enough of but it's reality.

Then there's controversy over natural gas supplies to south-eastern Australia, gas exports from other states, how to supply oil so long as we're still using it and so on.

Plus in some states water itself is subject to much the same politics with all manner of arguments, some true but many false.

I mention that because it seems rather likely that hydrogen will end up being caught up in all that indeed it involves the whole lot. It's a gas made from electricity and water - that ticks a lot of boxes on the tribal politics checklist.

I'd be very cautious in investing for that reason. You don't want to join the now rather long list of those who've got it right technically and economically but come unstuck politically when it comes to something involving energy.

Research the company and its projects very carefully and consider any political implications is my opinion there.

But we could see here the effect of O/S politics.
If Biden or his followers decide to go hydrogen, we will export hydrogen from CQ, not LPG.
And the choice will not be ours: just economics ...
co2 production irrelevant, then if labour comes to power here, it will change again with another narrative.
I would not play any money on hydrogen at the current stage

 

[sptrawler]

But we could see here the effect of O/S politics.
If Biden or his followers decide to go hydrogen, we will export hydrogen from CQ, not LPG.
And the choice will not be ours: just economics ...
co2 production irrelevant, then if labour comes to power here, it will change again with another narrative.
I would not play any money on hydrogen at the current stage

With the current media attention swinging away from Trump, climate change is the next cash cow for them, so IMO ramping anything green will happen whether we want it or not, whether it makes sense politically or financially as always is secondary to the media IMO.
It is more about winding up the masses, so whether it is practical is a side issue, what matters is "will it save the planet, Scotty". ?
Just my opinion and I'm not talking from a pro or against perspective.

 

[SirRumpole]

I believe hydrogen can be stored as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and released by exposure to a silver catalyst. You will get a lot of heat and steam as the products are water and oxygen.

But I'm no expert.

 

[jbocker]

It was the thing that attracted me to Eden Energy (EDE) in the early days. Injecting H2 into methane to produce Hythane (their product) that significantly reduced CO and NOx emissions. India produces a lot of power from diesel generators and there was a market for Hythane blah blah. Still in play.
There was also made some buses run on Hydrogen. Had a few in Perth. It became a sad event. Abandoned around 2007.
Then they were able to produce Hydrogen from a (University Queensland) developed pyrolysis machine which stripped out the carbon. I think more as a side effect, the carbon exited (partly?) as nanotubes which can can be used in light weight high strength products. They added this into concrete mix and you get some excellent abrasive resistant concrete, potentially for highways that suffer from ice/snow clearing. Lots of tests done created edencrete, all looks good but they seem to struggle to make a $. What they actually do with the hydrogen I dont know!
All sounded good to me, but have tired of it and have left with a feeling that H2 generation, transport and containment is too hard. Someone will probably do much the same thing in the future, get the right spin on it and do fabulously well. Eden haven't got the spin right yet ?. Maybe the market is still yet to mature.

 

[rederob]

The principal impediments to a hydrogen future are:

• Energy loss
• Infrastructure
• Demand

Irrespective of politics, there is presently no commercial imperative for hydrogen.
First, as Elon Musk has regularly pointed out, the production chain for hydrogen is energy intensive compared to batteries. While that puts batteries in a strong position for land transport over the next decade or two, the physical constraint to a battery-powered future will be the inability to scale battery production fast enough, combined with the mining sector being unable to satisfy raw material demand. In such a scenario the base case for hydrogen will grow, and the hydrogen cost curve will follow the downward trajectory of battery technology.
Second, apart from the fact there is very little hydrogen infrastructure around the world, there is presently no "best model" to work from. And that's aside from the issue of blue or green hydrogen production. That said, green hydrogen has the advantage of electroysers being nodal to population centres, and using fiber-reinforced polymer pipelines not only a means to distribute hydrogen but also to "store" the gas (as unlike water, hydrogen can be compressed within its pipelines and regulated to flow at a much lesser pressure to its end users, if necessary).
Finally, as the interactive graphic below shows, the potential demand covers all transport sectors and energy intensive industrial sectors:

The will be a major transitional hurdle to jump for each and every sector above and, of course, an extra cost.

While a number of posters bring out "tribal" issues, the real question is what are we planning for- globally - when fossil fuels run out?

 

[sptrawler]

IMO @rederob, there is an inevitability about hydrogen and nuclear, if global warming is to be stopped.
As you say there will be hurdles and costs, but the alternatives, don't work long term.
Just my opinion.
Now about this population issue?