Connect with us

Published

on

In the first part of this series, I projected and explained the plummeting hydrogen demand from petroleum refining and fertilizer, the biggest sources of demand today, through 2100. In the second part, I explored the flat demand segments, and the single source of significant demand increase I see for hydrogen in the next 20 years. In this final assessment, I look at the great but false hopes for a hydrogen economy: transportation, long-term storage, and heat.

Hydrogen demand through 2100 by author

Hydrogen demand through 2100, by author.

Transportation — 0 rising to 1 (one) million tons H2

This is one of the great hopes of the current fossil fuel industry, and a couple of car companies which have managed to capture their governments in Korea and Japan. However, there’s no significant place for hydrogen or synthetic fuels made from it in ground transportation. Electrification is simply too easy, prevalent, cheap, and effective. Hydrogen can’t compete outside of tiny niches like vintage vehicles. For short- and medium-haul aviation, and short- and medium-haul water freight shipping, the clear path is battery electric as well.

That only leaves long-haul shipping and long-haul aviation as areas where hydrogen might have a play. Mark Z. Jacobson and I discussed this on CleanTech Talk a year and a half ago. His perspective was that in order to get to a zero-carbon world, hydrogen would have to be used for long-haul shipping and aviation.

His perspective on shipping was that we needed to eliminate black carbon, with its 100-year global warming potential of 1,055–2,240. Subsequently, I spent a couple of hours talking with Hadi Akbari, a PhD of mechanical engineering who has spent the last several years of his fascinating career spanning two continents building scrubbers for heavy marine vessels. Just as particulates are scrubbed from coal plant emissions, they can be scrubbed from marine emissions, and so biofuels with their lower black carbon emissions will be fit for purpose in my opinion. (Note: this is my opinion after talking with Hadi and researching further, not Hadi’s expressed opinion.) Biofuels use nature to do most of the heavy lifting and have advanced substantially over the past decade. There is no value in using them in ground transportation, they no longer consume food sources and there is little real concern about them competing with agriculture, although there is a lot of expressed concern nonetheless.

On aviation, Jacobson rightly points out that we have to solve emissions, but it’s a hard problem, with CO2 emissions, nitrous oxide emissions (anything burned in our atmosphere combines the nitrogen and oxygen into nitrous oxides), and the water vapor which creates contrails. In discussion with Paul Martin, it’s clear that both hydrogen storage and fuel cells would have to be in the fuselage, leaving a lot less room for passengers and luggage or making the fuselage bigger with attendant efficiency losses, and creating a heavy burden of excess heat from the fuel cells that makes them deeply unlikely. In his perspective, hydrogen would be burned directly in jet engines in this model, and that wouldn’t eliminate nitrous oxides or water vapor hence contrails.

Once again, low-carbon biofuels are likely to be the solution here. Certified versions have existed since 2011, after all, while there are exactly zero certified hydrogen drive train planes in the world. And contrails require fairly minimal operational changes, as a regular CleanTechnica reader who holds my feet the fire pointed out (and thank you for doing so, Hazel). Those operational changes still have to be mandated for the airlines, but it’s not as significant a problem as I had originally assumed.

Biofuels are enhanced with some hydrogen in some cases, and there are always going to be edge cases where hydrogen persists, but my projection for all modes of transportation including biofuel use is still only an increase from effectively 0 tons today to a million tons a year by 2100.

Long-term storage — 0 rising to 1 (one) million tons

Hydrogen is also projected as a solution for the dunkelflaute, long dreary periods when there is little wind or sunshine. However, it only makes into the also-ran categories of my projections for grid storage, not into the three major technologies.

Projection of grid storage capacity through 2060 by major categories by author

Even there, it’s not going to be a big player in the also ran category, fighting for scraps with all the other contenders a long way back in the pack. Some of the reasons are the same as always. It’s ineffective, it’s inefficient and it will be vastly more expensive. But more than that, the need just isn’t there unless you assume a whole bunch of other solutions aren’t already occurring.

High-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission has been around since the 1950s, but in 2012 they finally solved a major technical inhibitor to its wide scale use. Despite the presence of multiple grids on continents already sharing electricity with HVDC asynchronous connections between high-voltage alternative current (HVAC) synchronized grids, despite massive HVDC construction projects under way, planned and proposed, despite electricity already being transmitted long-distances today with much more lossy HVAC, many people seem to think that electricity won’t be transmitted from renewables between opposing ends of continents and even across continents.

Electricity already flows from Africa to Europe across the Bosphorus Strait. Expanding that with big HVDC pipes from solar installations and wind farms in northern Africa is trivial, just as getting more HVDC pipes to ease the logjam from North Sea offshore wind into the population centers of Europe is straightforward and being constructed.

Renewables are cheap to build, and just as with every other form of electrical generation except nuclear, will be overbuilt and run under capacity part of the year.

Demand management strategies vs V2g projection

Demand management strategies vs V2g projection by author

And the emergence of massive electrification increases the ability to do demand management at much larger scales.

The assumption of the need for long-term storage assumes narrow geographical boundaries, an archaic concept of energy independence in a world of global trade, and actively hostile neighbors. Liebreich and I have started this conversation online, with his opening salvo being a question of whether Japan would ever accept the proposed HVDC links with China, to which I respond now that China is already 20% of Japan’s annual trade, so why is electricity different?

Germany will likely be the one outlier in this space. They have underground salt deposits that they can turn into caverns, they have a weird love affair with hydrogen too, and dunkelflaute being a German word isn’t a coincidence. If anybody builds significant hydrogen storage, it will probably be them.

As a result, my projection for global demand for hydrogen for electricity storage rises from effectively zero tons today to a million tons in 2100. Someone will waste the money, but very few.

Heating — 0 tons rising to … 0 (zero) tons

And finally, heating, the beloved hope of natural gas utilities globally, all of whom are lobbying hard to convince governments to let them ship hydrogen into homes and buildings to replace natural gas, and to allow them to inject tiny amounts of hydrogen into existing natural gas lines to produce close to zero emissions reductions.

There are no certified hydrogen home furnaces or stoves today. The existing natural gas distribution network would have to be completely replaced to handle hydrogen. Current challenges with leaking natural gas would be multiplied vastly by leaking hydrogen due to the tiny size of the molecule. SGN in Scotland is trying to retrofit 300 homes in Fife with hydrogen appliances for free, one of the many efforts going on around the world by utilities whose life is rapidly ending.

No, what will happen is that all of that natural gas distribution infrastructure will be shoved into electrical minimills to create steel for useful things, and the world will convert to heat pumps and induction stoves.

My projection for global demand for hydrogen for heating is effectively zero tons today, and remaining at so far under a million tons through 2100 that it rounds down to zero.


And so, that’s the projection. It’s flawed, of course, but not fatally in my opinion. It’s my first iteration of the projection, and it’s withstood me writing 4,000 words over three articles explaining it, so there’s that. But as with my projections on grid storage and vehicle-to-grid, I offer it to create a useful discussion about what the world will become, and welcome challenges to it.

Hydrogen demand today is two-thirds for petroleum refining and fertilizer manufacturing. Both of those uses are going to drop precipitously in the coming decades. The one growth area, steel, will not replace them, in my opinion. Green hydrogen only has to replace the useful two-thirds of hydrogen demand seen today, and grow to 75% of 2021 demand by 2100 to fulfill all needs.

 

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.

 

 


Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla’s top crash safety architect quits

Published

on

By

Tesla's top crash safety architect quits

Tesla’s top crash safety architect, who helped the automaker achieve top safety scores for its entire car line-up, announced that he is leaving the automaker after 14 years.

We are talking about Petter Winberg, Tesla’s Principal Engineer for CAE crashing safety for the last decade.

After an extensive career at Volvo and SAAB, both car brands praised for their commitment to safety, Winberg joined Tesla in 2011 to work on the “crash safety development of Model S structure and side occupant restraints.”

At the time, Tesla was still working on the Model S, its first vehicle built entirely from the ground up, considering the original Roadster was based on the Lotus Elise.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

CEO Elon Musk aimed for “Tesla vehicles to be the safest on the planet,” and Winberg took the challenge seriously.

He led the development of the vehicle body and chassis structure for Model 3 and Model Y, as well as the crash structure for Model S and Model X.

All of these vehicles have received top safety crash scores from independent testers worldwide – quickly elevating Tesla’s brand into a leader in passive safety.

Winberg and his team deserve a lot of the credit for this.

The engineer also led the design of crash readiness and the energy-absorbing capacity of Tesla’s latest “gigacasting” and structural battery pack designs, for which he obtained patents. Other automakers have since adopted similar designs.

For those less technical who want to understand how good and respected Winberg is at Tesla, he has been working for Tesla remotely in Sweden for the last five years. That’s impressive in itself, considering how much Musk hates remote work. He previously emailed Tesla management to tell them that only exceptional employees would be eligible for an exemption to work remotely, which he would approve himself.

After 14 years at Tesla, Winberg announced last week that he is leaving (via LinkedIn):

Having developed Model S, S-DM, X, 3, Y, Y-SP as well as future crash architectures, I have decided now is the time to move on. Thank you Tesla, keep crushing it! What an incredible team, I will miss you all.

He didn’t elaborate on his reasons for leaving the automaker or announce another venture.

Electrek’s Take

While Tesla has received much criticism for the dangers of its Autopilot and “Full Self-Driving” systems, I don’t think anyone can question that Tesla vehicles perform extremely well in terms of passive safety.

Independent testing has proven it time and time again.

Tesla has led the way in taking advantage of designing electric vehicles from the ground up. Its skateboard-like powertrain design and lack of engine in the front allow for a giant crumple zone to absorb the energy in case of a crash.

A big thank you to Petter Winberg for his designs and leadership in improving Tesla’s passive safety. He has undoubtedly made the automotive industry safer and saved lives. Congratulations.

As for his departure, it’s certainly a blow for Tesla. As we previously reported, the company has suffered a significant exodus of talent over the last year, with a big part of its leadership leaving during and after a wave of layoffs last year.

Many predict that Tesla could again initiate another wave of layoffs in the coming months as its sales are crumbling worldwide.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Model S Plaid gets smoked in drag race by Xiaomi’s cheaper SU7 Ultra

Published

on

By

Tesla Model S Plaid gets smoked in drag race by Xiaomi's cheaper SU7 Ultra

The SU7 Ultra, Xiaomi’s new flagship electric vehicle, went against a Tesla Model S Plaid in a drag race and it smoked it.

The car is ridiculously powerful, and it’s about 35% cheaper than the Plaid, which is already affordable relative to its supercar performance.

We recently released a report about how impressed we are by Xiaomi’s incredible rise in the EV market in China.

Its first vehicle, the SU7, is a smash hit. It now consistently delivers over 20,000 units a month, it has surpassed the Tesla Model 3, its closest competitor, and has a more than 30-week-long backlog of orders.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The vehicle achieves more range and is cheaper than Model 3 while having additional features.

Last month, Xiaomi launched a new top-of-the-line version of the SU7: the SU7 Ultra.

The headline is that the $72,800 (529,900 RMB) has a powertrain packing up 1,526 horsepower. That’s absolutely insane. Xiaomi quotes a 0 to 100 km/h (0 to 62 mph) acceleration in just 1.98 seconds.

While the SU7 is meant more as a Model 3 competitor, the SU7 Ultra actually competes with Tesla’s flagship Model S Plaid in terms of performance.

They organized a drag race between the SU7 Ultra and Model S Plaid. Here it is:

As you can see, the SU7 Ultra slipped at the start, which is not surprising considering how much power it outputs, but it still managed to catch up and beat the Model S Plaid.

At over 1,000 horsepower, many, myself included, thought that it was a bit mad to offer a vehicle like the Model S Plaid with such supercar power for a relatively cheap price – RMB 814,900 (approximately $112,000 USD) in China and just $95,000 in the US.

But now, Xiaomi shakes things up even more by offering 1,500 horses for just a little more than $70,000. It’s mad.

Now, I can hear your thoughts: “but it’s just good in a straight line drag race like other EVs.” Think again, the SU7 Ultra prototype claimed the title as the fastest four-door sedan at the famous Nurburgring race track in Germany.

Electrek’s Take

Damn, the Chinese are good. Xiaomi has come hard with the SU7, but the crazy thing is that it’s just one of several Chinese top-of-the-line EVs coming out. Nio has the ET7, BYD has the U7, and there are many more.

These vehicles are all impressive in their own rights.

It’s easy to understand why American automakers are so scared and lobbied the US government for 100% tariffs on them.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump administration sends a clear message to the oil and gas industry: ‘You’re the customer’

Published

on

By

Trump administration sends a clear message to the oil and gas industry: 'You're the customer'

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum: We're bringing back manufacturing and mining to the U.S.

HOUSTON — The officials leading President Donald Trump’s energy agenda made clear to oil, gas and mining executives this week that they have an ally in Washington who intends to make it as easy as possible for them to drill in federal lands and waters.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told executives gathered for the world’s largest energy conference that the Trump administration does not view climate change as an existential threat. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said rising global temperatures are simply a byproduct of developing the country’s national resources to support economic growth and national security.

Burgum leads Trump’s recently established National Energy Dominance Council and Wright serves as his deputy on the interagency body tasked with boosting production. Burgum was effusive in his praise of the oil and gas industry during remarks delivered at CERAWeek by S&P Global conference.

“I’m going to share two words that I do not think that you have heard from a federal official in the Biden administration during the last four years. And those two words are thank you,” said Burgum, who previously served as governor of North Dakota, a state that produces 1.2 million barrels of oil per day.

Burgum leaned on his experience as software company executive to lay out his view of the interior department’s role. The department under his leadership views the companies developing resources on federal lands as “customers” who are contributing revenue to the nation’s “balance sheet,” Burgum said.

“If someone was sending me revenue, they weren’t the enemy. They were the customer,” Burgum said. The administration loves anyone who wants to harvest timber, mine for critical minerals, graze cattle, or produce oil and gas on federals, the interior secretary said.

Royalties sent from lease agreements on federal land will help the U.S. pay down its national debt and balance the budget, Burgum said. “You’re the customer,” the interior secretary told the executives.

The value of nation’s abundant natural resources far outweighs its $36 trillion in debt, Burgum said. If financial markets understood the value of America’s natural resources, the 10-year long-term interest rate would come down, Burgum claimed.

“The interest rates right now are one of the biggest expenses we have as a country,” Burgum said. “So one of the things that we have to do is unleash America’s balance sheet, and President Trump is helping us do that,” he said.

Burgum slammed the Biden administration’s focus on climate change as an “ideology.” He said the Trump administration views Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon and China winning the artificial intelligence race as the two existential threats facing the U.S. rather than global warming. Wright said Biden had a “myopic” and “quasi religious” belief in reducing emissions that hurt consumers.

Burgum and Wright dismissed policies that support a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, arguing that wind and solar won’t be able to meet rising energy demand in the coming years from artificial intelligence and re-industrialization.

“There is simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas. I haven’t even mentioned oil or coal yet,” Wright said at the conference. Wright previously served as CEO of oilfield services company Liberty Energy and a board member at nuclear startup Oklo.

Oil execs see allies in Washington

Oil executives are enthusiastic about the change of administrations in Washington, returning the praise they received from Trump’s energy team during the week.

ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said Wright and Burgum “understand the business,” describing them as the best energy team the U.S. has seen in decades. TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné said he was “impressed by the quality of our counterparts.” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said the industry is “seeing some reality come back to the conversation.”

“For years, my message has been, we need a balanced conversation about affordability, reliability and the environment, and focusing only on climate leads us to ignore the first two,” Wright said.

Energy Sec. Wright: We can get to no or very low tariffs, but it's got to be reciprocal

The executives all referred to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, following Trump’s executive order to rename the body of water. The president issued an order on his first day to repeal Biden’s ban on offshore drilling in 625 million acres of U.S. coastal waters.

BP CEO Murray Auchincloss briefly slipped before correcting himself when discussing how generative AI is helping with exploration: “We started doing this in the Gulf of Mexico, uh America, and we spread that to other nations as well.”

But Trump’s calls to “drill, baby, drill” are running up against market reality. The CEOs of Chevron and Conoco said U.S. oil production will likely plateau in the coming years after hitting new records under the Biden administration.

“Chasing growth for growth’s sake has not proven to be particularly successful for our industry,” Wirth said. “At some point, you’ve grown enough that you should start to move towards a plateau, and you should generate more free cash flow, rather than just more barrels.”

Lance sees U.S. oil production plateauing later this decade and then slowly declining.

“Maybe it’s time to go back to exploring the Gulf of America,” Pouyanné said. “The new administration is opening the Gulf. It has been slowed down after the Macondo drama,” he said, referring the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest in the history of marine drilling operations.

U.S. oil producers are scheduled to meet with Trump next week, industry lobby group American Petroleum Institute said in statement.

Continue Reading

Trending