Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
I'm sorry SPTrawler, but I have to disagree that Hydrogen is a threat to batteries as a method of energy storage.

I've just spent a bit of time reading around the net on the efficiency of such a set-up.

http://www.catalyticengineering.com/terawatt-hour-energy-storage-power-to-gas/

"Energy storage in hydrogen

Electrolyzers convert water to hydrogen, consuming electricity in the process. The cells aren’t cheap as they require specialized materials, and you lose more than 30% of the energy in conversion. One energy storage concept is to store that hydrogen, then run it back through a fuel cell to convert the hydrogen directly to electricity. But this is expensive, since two stacks are needed (electrolyzer and fuel cell) and the round-trip efficiency is poor (70% electrolyzer x 50% fuel cell = 35% round trip at best). In addition, large high-pressure tank farms would be needed to store appreciable amounts of energy in the form of hydrogen."

That's the theoretical, this one is in an actual test, using the oxygen to increase efficiency.............

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319904001788

"An electrolyzer and a fuel cell have been integrated in a small-scale stand-alone renewable energy system to demonstrate that hydrogen can be used for long-term stationary energy storage. The economic and environmental performance of such a system is strongly related to the ability of the electrolyzer to convert electrical energy to hydrogen and the ability of the fuel cell to convert hydrogen back to electrical energy, which together define the round-trip efficiency of the hydrogen storage system. One promising way to improve the efficiency as well as to decrease the capital costs of the fuel cell is to recuperate the oxygen from the electrolyzer and use it as the fuel cell oxidant instead of compressed air. This paper presents the modifications made to the system in order to implement oxygen recuperation. The round-trip system efficiency was found to be 18% with oxygen recuperation and 13.5% without it."

Those energy efficiency numbers are horrible compared to Lithium-ion batteries, plus I suspect the capital costs of electrolyzers, fuelcells and storage containers for the hydrogen too be way in excess of inverters and lithium-ion batteries.
Li-on batteries do not last forever, but neither do fuel cells, so there is a weak point on both methods.

Just what Toyota are now doing, by starting to play catch up to other car manufacturers, by heading into battery electric vehicles, when they were the leaders in Hydrogen vehicles, tends to indicate which they think will be cheaper in the long run.
 
Pumped hydro versus batteries versus hydrogen versus heat versus anything else as a means of energy storage is very much an “it depends” question.

It’s like someone asking me how they should power their house so as to be most economical. I wouldn’t even try to answer that question without at least knowing the location, building type and what relevant infrastructure is already there and in serviceable condition.

Likewise answering the question of energy storage also first requires answers as to location, situation and what infrastructure already exists.

Building a pumped storage scheme in the suburbs of Adelaide or on a larger scale up in the mountains of NSW or Tas is one way to store energy but I’ll give you an absolute guarantee that you won’t see someone driving a car with a water tank on the roof and a pipe leading down to a pelton wheel as a means of powering the car. Oh no you won’t, at least not if the intent is to move it more than a few metres on perfectly flat ground.

What works, both technically and economically, and what doesn’t absolutely depends on the circumstances.
 
I 100% agree Smurf on the circumstances dictating future outcomes, but I see how BEVs are going to be mass produced in the short term, while FCVs are niche. This leads to a much greater research expenditure into Battery technology than Hydrogen and fuel cells. Given the inherent inefficiencies of electricity - conversion to hydrogen - storage - conversion to electricity, than electricity - battery - electricity, I see batteries beating hydrogen hands down on a comparison basis between both. Pumped Hydro is a different beast, and will certainly have applications in the right locations.

As of 1st January we received a 14% increase in our power costs for peak, off peak AND service to property charges. Peak rates are now over 40c/Kwh with off peak now up to 20c/Kwh. Luckily we receive the PFIT in Victoria for a 5kw system. With these types of increases it will not be long before an entire off grid system becomes cheaper, allowing for batteries to be replaced every 10 years.

On the current topic of Batteries vs Hydrogen, I'm in particular concentrating on transportation. For myself a battery operated vehicle charged from my own solar makes a lot of financial sense, given decreasing costs of lithium batteries and solar installations. I already have a separate off grid 20Kwh battery storage electric micro-grid, on a separate property from the mains connection. If I was not on the PFIT it would be cheaper electricity than the grid.
 
brty said:
I 100% agree Smurf on the circumstances dictating future outcomes, but I see how BEVs are going to be mass produced in the short term, while FCVs are niche. This leads to a much greater research expenditure into Battery technology than Hydrogen and fuel cells. Given the inherent inefficiencies of electricity - conversion to hydrogen - storage - conversion to electricity, than electricity - battery - electricity, I see batteries beating hydrogen hands down on a comparison basis between both. Pumped Hydro is a different beast, and will certainly have applications in the right locations.

As of 1st January we received a 14% increase in our power costs for peak, off peak AND service to property charges. Peak rates are now over 40c/Kwh with off peak now up to 20c/Kwh. Luckily we receive the PFIT in Victoria for a 5kw system. With these types of increases it will not be long before an entire off grid system becomes cheaper, allowing for batteries to be replaced every 10 years.

On the current topic of Batteries vs Hydrogen, I'm in particular concentrating on transportation. For myself a battery operated vehicle charged from my own solar makes a lot of financial sense, given decreasing costs of lithium batteries and solar installations. I already have a separate off grid 20Kwh battery storage electric micro-grid, on a separate property from the mains connection. If I was not on the PFIT it would be cheaper electricity than the grid.
Click to expand...

I haven't got a vested interest in either batteries or hydrogen, I am just basing my ideology on experience.
Batteries have a place and always will, but as they are made up of finite resources (of which some are fairly scarce), they will have a problem with supply as demand exceeds it.
If all vehicles use batteries and all house's use batteries and all industry use batteries, it is only a matter of time before the resource becomes an issue, recycling hasn't proved to be a major driver in reducing the demand for iron ore etc.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, so the availability isn't an issue, the only issue everyone keeps bringing up is the cost to produce it.
If it is produced from excess renewable energy, when people aren't using it for heating or cooling, the cost really isn't an issue.

The major benefit in the fuel cell is, from what I've read, the longevity.
Also hydrogen is a permanent storage medium, fill up a cylinder and you can use it when and where you like, batteries can't do that.
Hydrogen, the same as LNG, can be used as a fuel for internal combustion engines, turbines, fuel cells, even as a fuel for your BBQ and there is no residue left over or given off.

The energy density of a kg of liquid hydrogen, will go a lot further than a kg of lithium based batteries.
Liquid hydrogen has an energy density of 33 Kwhr/ kg, lithium/ion has an energy density of 120Whr/kg, like that isn't really brilliant eh.

The only issue with hydrogen is the cost to produce it, but as is happening in S.A, if it is made with surplus renewable energy, that isn't an issue.
It gives off no polution when burnt, it requires minimum polution to make it.
Whereas minerals for batteries require mining then chemical and mechanical energy to produce the battery and when it is dead you have to deal with the residue.

Batteries have a life of approximately 10 years, then they require replacement, hydrogen can be stored indefinitely and used when and where required.

Like I said IMO batteries have a place and will be with us forever, at the moment they are the obvious answer for the immediate problem, however IMO large scale energy storage will end up being hydrogen.
As I said time will tell and it is only my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sold on batteries just yet. Seems like a quick solution with a very small working life.
 
I think the Achilles heel of the lithium battery will be how well a recycling industry does once the thousands of large batteries start hitting the battery graveyard. That's the elephant in the room. If tesla alone reach thier sales goals we could literally have mountains of recycling to do....one hopes it's lucrative because not too many forms of recycling are really lucrative enough for it to be done perfectly.
 
CanOz said:
Sp can you link some articles or something to show how you've come to that conclusion regarding stored hydrogen?
Click to expand...
Well canOz, you've answered one of the questions you asked me, in your last post.
For further explanation of my basis, read my last post #2186.:xyxthumbs
 
CanOz said:
If tesla alone reach thier sales goals we could literally have mountains of recycling to do....one hopes it's lucrative because not too many forms of recycling are really lucrative enough for it to be done perfectly.
Click to expand...
Worth noting in that context that the existing recycling industry is just about to collapse right now.

Practically every council in Australia will have had discussions with their garbage collection contractor (if they outsource collection) in the past few weeks or is themselves trying to find a solution ASAP.

Nobody wants to say it but sending the majority of it straight to landfill is the likely outcome in practice. At the moment it’s just piling up but there’s only so much space in the sheds etc.
 
sptrawler said:
Well canOz, you've answered one of the questions you asked me, in your last post.
For further explanation of my basis, read my last post #2186.:xyxthumbs
Click to expand...

Yeah and it's on my mind too but I don't think the scale of it has hit home yet....

Agree smurf....and we thought that was simple, household recycling.
 
My thinking at this stage is that batteries and hydrogen will have their niches largely where the end use is mobile but that pumped hydro will do most of the “grunt work” so far as the grid is concerned.

Take SA as an example. Biggest battery in the world and one of the worst places imaginable for anything hydro given it’s mostly flat and dry.

But then I could mention that current pumped hydro proposals collectively are 10 times the peak generating capacity of the big battery.

If pumped hydro can beat batteries in SA then there’s no contest just about anywhere else.

Batteries do have a role though, I can think of a use for a modest sized one even in Tas, but under present circumstances pumped hydro beats them as a means of bulk on-grid storage.

Durability has much to do with it. A decade for a battery versus a century or more for pumped hydro.

Not much exotic material with hydro either - concrete, steel and a bit of copper and aluminium covers most of it.
 
Smurf1976 said:
My thinking at this stage is that batteries and hydrogen will have their niches largely where the end use is mobile but that pumped hydro will do most of the “grunt work” so far as the grid is concerned.
.
Click to expand...

Pumped hydro is magic, if you have hills, which equals fall.
W.A isn't so well endowed.
For those without pumped storage, hydrogen is the only viable alternative, other than nuclear. IMO
I am only guessing, more learned posters, can correct me.
To qualify the statements, I'm talking clean energy storage.
The good thing with hydrogen storage is, if you don't use it, just add storage.
Then all of a sudden you have two days storage, then two weeks storage, then two months storage.
It is really difficult to do that with batteries, they end up being a city of building blocks.
Like I said they have a place, but it ain't bulk storage of energy.IMO
 
To take the debate one step further, IMO hydrogen is the only clean fuel, other than nuclear, that we can produce at this point in time.
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
sptrawler said:
It is really difficult to do that with batteries, they end up being a city of building blocks.
Like I said they have a place, but it ain't bulk storage of energy.IMO
Click to expand...
If someone looked at the big battery in SA and didn’t know what it was they’d likely assume it to be a row of shipping containers.

That’s pretty much what it looks like until you get close enough to see that it’s electrical.

As for scale, well the Hydro Tas system stores 112,263 times as much energy as SA’s big battery so no contest there. Not in the same league by any means.

That said, if the energy source is wind and sun then you don’t necessarily need as much storage as if the energy source is water. Droughts tend to last longer than periods of calm or cloudy weather.

Best of all is to integrate the lot. There’s some obvious benefits in having sun, wind and rain as inputs to the same system since you’ll get at least one of those practically every day thus greatly reducing the scale of storage required compared to a system based on only one of those resources.
 
Smurf1976 said:
As for scale, well the Hydro Tas system stores 112,263 times as much energy as SA’s big battery so no contest there. Not in the same league by any means.
Click to expand...

SA basically needed a stop gap so they could say they solved the problem untill they got around to a more long term solution. You can't build pumped hydro in 90 days, and the battery is some sort of solution that they can go to an election with.
 
Smurf1976 said:
If someone looked at the big battery in SA and didn’t know what it was they’d likely assume it to be a row of shipping containers.

That’s pretty much what it looks like until you get close enough to see that it’s electrical.

As for scale, well the Hydro Tas system stores 112,263 times as much energy as SA’s big battery so no contest there. Not in the same league by any means.

That said, if the energy source is wind and sun then you don’t necessarily need as much storage as if the energy source is water. Droughts tend to last longer than periods of calm or cloudy weather.

Best of all is to integrate the lot. There’s some obvious benefits in having sun, wind and rain as inputs to the same system since you’ll get at least one of those practically every day thus greatly reducing the scale of storage required compared to a system based on only one of those resources.
Click to expand...
Yes but having said that, batteries are fine for a short term stop gap, but it isn't long term bulk storage of energy.
I know what you're saying with the fact sun, wind doesn't require long term storage, but if base load coal, gas disappears, bulk storage will be required.
Maybe I'm wrong and I don't know the whole picture, that has happened before.lol
 

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
520
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
15
Views
3K
finicky
finicky
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
Top