Connect with us

Published

on

In this edition of CleanTech Talk, Paul Martin and I discuss Michael Liebreich’s hydrogen ladder. Paul is a working chemical process engineer, and has spent his career building prototypes of biofuel, hydrogen, and chemical processing plants as part of scaling them to full, modularized production systems for clients. Paul’s piece in CleanTechnica on why hydrogen is not suitable as a replacement for natural gas in buildings is a must read.

Liebreich is an entrepreneur, founder of what has become Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), chairman on multiple boards, has engineering and business degrees, and represented the UK on their skiing team in 1992. He’s had a rich and interesting life, but for the purposes of this pair of podcasts and attendant articles, it’s his iteratively improving hydrogen ladder Paul Martin and I are focusing on.

Regular readers of CleanTechnica will know that I have been assessing hydrogen’s place in the decarbonized economy in the areas of transportation, oil refining, and industry, among others. Paul and I share a strong opinion that “blue” hydrogen, which is sourced from fossil fuels with 10-30 times the mass of CO2 which is theoretically going to be sequestered or used, is a fossil-fuel industry lobbying effort and not a viable climate solution.

Michael Liebreich’s Hydrogen Ladder v4.1, used with permission under Creative Commons license.

Listeners are recommended to keep the hydrogen ladder in front of them as Paul and I talk through aspects of it.

We start with a discussion of one of Paul’s frequently used hashtags, #hopium, which he defines as the drug that is made out of our own hope to overcome our faculties and divert government money to things which aren’t useful. We agree that the fossil fuel industry are masters of PR when it comes to giving false hope to governments and individuals that we can just vacuum CO2 out of the air or out of smokestacks after emitting it, rather than the reality that we leave most fossil fuels unburned and unused.

Paul steps through existing hydrogen production, pointing out that of the 120 million tons used annually today, less than 0.1% could be considered green hydrogen, intentionally cracked from water using renewably generated electricity. All hydrogen today is actually black, at least 30% blacker per unit of energy than the fossil fuel it was made from. For coal, up to 30 kg of CO2 is created for every kg of hydrogen, with one data point suggesting a proposal in Australia to make hydrogen from low-grade coal with 35 kg of CO2 for each kg of hydrogen. For natural gas, it’s up to 10 kg, but there is also methane leakage with its 86x worse than CO2 on 20 years global warming potential. Creation of hydrogen from natural includes an almost equal amount of GHGs in methane leakage, which is typically not counted in the emissions.

We continue with a discussion of ground transportation, where there is no place for hydrogen, in our opinion. Paul draws out the efficiency versus effectiveness argument first. Gasoline isn’t efficient, as perhaps 15% turns into useful energy, but it is effective due to being cheap, easily poured into gas tanks, and easily transported.

Hydrogen is neither efficient or effective for ground transportation. The misleading truths that are used for #hopium are that it’s the most common element in the universe and has excellent energy density for its mass.

The first truth is not helpful, as all hydrogen available to us is tightly chemically coupled with other substances, whether that is fossil fuels or water. It takes a lot of energy to break those bonds.

The second truth is not helpful either. Hydrogen, as the lightest element and lightest gas, has very poor energy density by volume, regardless of whether you compress it to 700 atmospheres, a little over 10,000 pounds per square inch, or chill it to 24 degrees above absolute zero to liquify it. As a gas, it has less than a third the energy density by volume of methane, and as a superchilled liquid, its energy density by volume is only 75% better.

Paul points out that the Toyota Mirai vs Tesla Model 3, otherwise comparable cars, is illustrative in that the Mirai weighs as much as the Tesla, even though it only carries 5.6 kilograms of hydrogen. The tanks weigh hundreds of kilograms. A standard hydrogen cylinder weighs 65 kg and only delivers 0.6 kg of hydrogen, a problem that transportation uses have to overcome with expensive thin-walled aluminum tanks wrapped in carbon fiber. It’s also worth noting that hydrogen cars have less interior and luggage room due to the hydrogen storage and fuel cell component space requirements.

Paul points out the lost mechanical energy of compression. He calculated once that the energy used to compress 5 kg of hydrogen to 700 atmospheres was equivalent to the kinetic potential energy of suspending the car 500 meters in the air, ready to drop. That energy is lost. If superchilled hydrogen were used instead, 40% of the energy in the hydrogen would have to be used to chill it.

The final devil in the details is thermal management. Hydrogen is an interesting gas in that unlike many other gases, it gets warmer as it expands. Anyone used to compressed air cans know that the jet of air comes out cold, but an equivalent jet of hydrogen would come out hot. Even though compressed hydrogen isn’t liquified, in other words, it has to be chilled in its tanks before being pumped into cars, another loss of energy.

This all leads to the common myth that hydrogen cars are quick and convenient to refuel. The reality is shown by Toyota’s entry in the 24-hour enduro Super Taikyu Series in Japan’s Shizuoka Prefecture. They prepped a racing Corolla with a hydrogen combustion engine. It had four huge carbon-fiber tanks in the area where you would normally have back seats. They brought four tractor trailers full of equipment to fuel the car. The car had to spend four hours of the 24 hours of the race refueling. Ineffective, inefficient, and with startling infrastructure requirements.

As Paul says, the devil isn’t hiding in the details, he’s waving his pitchfork in plain sight of anyone willing to see him.

We move on to agreeing in general that hydrogen might have a direct play in long-haul shipping, or at least hasn’t proven itself uncompetitive in that space. I recently assessed Maersk’s methanol drivetrain dual-fuel ships announcement, and 40-day journeys with thousands of tons of fuel are a very hard problem to crack. Maersk has proposed a green methanol manufacturing facility capable of producing enough synthetic green methanol annually to cover half of one trip for one of the eight ships.

For the rest of the first half of the podcast, aviation is in our sights. Paul and I agree that short- and medium-haul aviation — basically all air trips within the boundaries of most continents — are going to be battery electric. Hydrogen has no advantages for those ranges.

And we agree that long-haul aviation is another hard problem. I went deep on long-haul aviation’s global warming contributions and challenges recently, so had the concerns at top of mind. First was the problem of direct carbon dioxide emissions of course, but aviation also has contrail and nitrous oxides emissions problems.

Contrails are water vapor, effectively clouds. Due to the altitude of especially night-flying high-altitude planes, they keep more heat in than they reflect. That’s something that can partially be managed by changing operations, reducing altitude and night-time operations, but there are economic reasons why planes fly high and at night that need to be addressed with economic incentives.

Nitrous oxides are trickier. Any fuel burned in oxygen produces nitrous oxides with a bunch of the nitrogen from the air, which is, after all, 78% nitrogen. Nitrogen combined with oxygen in the form of N20, nitrous oxide or laughing gas, has a global warming potential of 265 times that of CO2, and persists in the atmosphere a long time.

Another form of nitrous oxide, NO2 or nitrous dioxide, is the chemical precursor to smog, causing asthma and other heart lung problems. For those following along, yes, if you have a natural gas stove or furnace in your home, it’s also putting NO2 into your home’s air along with carbon monoxide, which you need a detector for if you don’t have it. All the more reason to electrify to induction stove tops and heat pumps as your appliances age out.

Paul’s perspective is that hydrogen for long-haul aviation has multiple problems. The first is that it can’t be stored as a pressurized gas in airplanes due to the increasing loss of atmospheric pressure and bulk as planes ascend to 30,000 ft. The second is that even chilled, it’s much less dense by volume than kerosene, so it would have to be stored in the fuselage. The third is that fuel cells are bulky for energy output of sufficient electricity, so would also have to be within the fuselage, and fuel cells give off a lot of heat. So that means either jets lose a fair amount of passenger and luggage storage, or get a lot bigger and heavier, even before the cooling and venting requirements for the fuel cell heat. That makes the economics of jet travel problematic, which might be just fine, as it arguably should be more expensive than it is.

However, this means that it would be hydrogen jet engines that would be used if hydrogen were to be used directly as a fuel. And burning hydrogen in a jet engine will produce a lot of water vapor, hence the same contrails, and nitrous oxides, hence the high global warming potential. Hydrogen would only deal with two-thirds of the problem.

Paul and I agree that biofuels for hard-to-service transportation modes such as long-haul shipping and aviation, along with operational changes and reduced use, are likely the best we can do until we achieve a battery as much better than lithium-ion as lithium-ion is than lead acid, and that took a century.

But we’ve had biofuels certified for aviation use since 2011, and they just aren’t being used. They are more expensive, despite being much lower CO2 emissions cradle-to-grave than kerosene. Once again, negative externalities have to be priced.

The next half of the podcast discussion gets into places where hydrogen actually has a place in the sun, but makes it clear that hydrogen is actually a decarbonization problem, not a decarbonization solution.

 

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

This battery pack makes Tesla Roadster 400 lbs lighter, but it ain’t cheap

Published

on

By

This battery pack makes Tesla Roadster 400 lbs lighter, but it ain't cheap

A battery pack manufacturer has released a new solution for Tesla Roadster with aging battery packs. It would slash the car’s weight by about 400 lbs, but it’s not cheap.

In many ways, the Tesla Roadster sparked the electric vehicle revolution.

It was the first commercially available consumer EV with lithium battery cells – enabling over 200 miles of range on a single charge.

The vehicle had comparable or better performance than many other gas-powered vehicles in its segment.

The Roadster had its problem. It was a suboptimal solution as it was still heavily based on the Lotus Elise and not designed from the ground up to be electric, but it did its job as a proof-of-concept.

Tesla only manufactured about 2,000 of them between 2008 and 2011 before moving on to the Model S and other vehicle programs that were built to be electric from the ground up.

Despite being 13 to 16 years old, many Roadsters are still doing well. Electrek’s own Jamie Dow drives his daily. That’s despite Tesla not doing anything with the Roadster program since 2017 when it launched the Roadster 3.0 replacement pack.

Battery technology has improved a lot since then, and a company has decided to take advantage of that and offer a new battery pack for Tesla Roadster owners.

re/cell, a Texas-based supplier of remanufactured battery packs for EVs, has unveiled a new Roadster battery pack that aims to slash hundreds of pounds off of the sports car.

Unlike Tesla’s latest vehicles, which are equipped with skateboard-like platform battery packs, the Roadster has a pack that sits behind the seats in the back and the modules are in the shape seen above.

It does cause problems with balancing the weight of the vehicle.

The pack is able to achieve the Roadster’s peak power output, but it should be a lot more fun to drive by shaving up to 400 lbs off of the car’s original 2,877 lb (1,305 kg) weight.

It does come with a lower energy capacity than the original 53 kWh, but you should be able to achieve very similar range (over 220 miles) thanks to the efficiency gain from the weight loss.

Here are the full specs of re/cell’s new Roadster battery replacement pack:

  • Peak Power Output: 260 kW / 285 kW
  • Weight Savings: up to 400 lbs / 180 kg
  • Volume Savings: 3.7 cu ft / 100 liters
  • Energy Capacity: 38 kWh / 47 kWh
  • Rated Range: 220-240 miles / 350-390 km
  • Cell Type: 18650 / 3500 mAh
  • Cell Configuration: 31p99s / 39p99s

re/cell describes some of the improvements that they were able to make to the pack:

The revolutionary cooling-block design is a single-piece molded core with Palladium-class cooling ribbons for improved cooling and temperature management. The contact area for heat transfer is 50x larger than the cooling tubes used in the original Roadster sheets and the overall surface area for cooling and heating is now more than double. No more vacant cooling voids allowing for hot spots or uneven cooling or heating – the entire cell is now fully encapsulated and temperature controlled!

However, this offer is not going to be for everyone since Roadster owners need to be willing to invest $28,000 in their aging vehicle, which is the price of the pack if you give your existing pack to re/cell.

Interestingly, the company is also thinking about offering other upgrades that can be enabled by space freed up by the new pack.

For example, re/cell believes it would be easier to make the pack capable of DC fast-charging. liquid cooling for the PEM and Motor 

Electrek’s Take

I really enjoyed driving the Roadster 3.0, and I’d be curious to see how much better it would handle with 14% less weight.

There are just no other electric vehicles out there that weigh just 2,400 lbs. Even a Fiat 500e weighs nearly 3,000 lbs.

I can’t wait for small electric sports cars around 2,500 lbs. They should be so much fun and it sounds like this, despite not being designed from the ground up for it, could be an interesting preview.

And there’s not better way to power your electric sports car than with solar. If you want to make sure you’re finding a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage. EnergySage is a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar – whether you’re a homeowner or renter. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, including some who install Tesla products like Powerwalls. They ensure you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

GM is offering $1,000 off select Chevy, Cadillac, and GMC EV models for Veterans Day

Published

on

By

GM is offering ,000 off select Chevy, Cadillac, and GMC EV models for Veterans Day

GM is honoring those who served our country with a new incentive to go electric. For Veterans Day and through November, GM is offering $1,000 off select Chevy, Cadillac, and GMC EV models. Here’s how you can score some savings this month.

GM EV offers for Veterans Day and November 2024

GM launched a new military appreciation offer this month, offering $1,000 off on select electric models to those who served.

The offer is good on most 2023, 2024, and 2025 electric models from GM’s Chevy, GMC, and Cadillac brands. Electric models included in the deal include the following:

  • 2023, 2024, and 2025 GMC Hummer EV
  • 2023, 2024, and 2025 Cadillac Lyriq
  • 2024, 2025 Chevy Blazer EV
  • 2024, 2025 Chevy Equinox EV
  • 2024, 2025 Chevy Silverado EV
  • 2024, 2025 GMC Sierra EV

Those interested can select their vehicle on GM’s Military Appreciation page. You will then be sent an authorization number, which you can use at a GM dealer.

The program includes Active Duty, Reservists, National Guard members, and Retirees of the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. To validate your military status, you will need to register through ID.me.

GM-EV-Veterans-Day
Chevy Blazer EV (left), Chevy Equinox EV (middle), Chevy Silverado EV (right) (Source: GM)

GM claims it has “the most inclusive military offer from any car company.” After selling a record 32,000 EVs last quarter, GM topped Ford to become America’s number two seller of electric vehicles.

Earlier today, GM announced EV sales in the US broke the 300,000 mark last month since 2016. The company said the sales surge is due to key new models rolling out.

GM-EV-sales-300,000
Chevy Silverado EV LT trim (Source: Chevrolet)

With the lower-priced 2025 Chevy Equinox EV and Silverado EV LT models now arriving at dealerships, GM is poised to see even more demand going into next year.

For non-military members, GM still offers some of the most affordable EVs on the market. You can use our links below to find the best deals on GM’s all-electric models at a dealer near you.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Coinbase, a16z and others pour more than $78 million into pro-crypto PAC for 2026 election

Published

on

By

Coinbase, a16z and others pour more than  million into pro-crypto PAC for 2026 election

Crypto donor Chris Larsen on why he's giving millions to the Harris campaign

With one day to go until the U.S. general election, crypto companies have already poured tens of millions of dollars into the upcoming 2026 cycle. The pro-crypto and bipartisan super PAC Fairshake said Monday that the committee and its affiliates have raised $78 million for the 2026 midterm elections.

That $78 million breaks down to more than $30 million raised, plus another $48 million in new commitments from centralized crypto exchange Coinbase and Silicon Valley venture fund Andreessen Horowitz, among other companies.

Early Monday, a16z general partner Chris Dixon, who heads up the fund’s crypto book, published a note explaining why the company contributed another $23 million to Fairshake.

“Regardless of what happens in the 2024 elections, we’re committed to supporting policymakers, irrespective of party affiliation, who will work to establish a practical regulatory framework that protects consumers while allowing the industry to grow,” the letter read.

Dixon added that “supporting a PAC like Fairshake is just one crucial part of the strategy needed to achieve our larger policy goals” and that a16z would continue to meet with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to advocate for the industry.

All in, a16z has given $70 million to Fairshake as the VC looks to support the PAC’s larger mission of building a Congress comprised of pro-crypto legislators.

On Wednesday, Coinbase announced it would give another $25 million to Fairshake.

Coinbase, the largest U.S. crypto exchange, was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission over claims that it engaged in unregistered sales of securities. It’s among Fairshake’s top contributors this cycle. The exchange has given more than $75 million to Fairshake and its affiliated PACs.

“We know we need to have pro-crypto legislation passed in this country,” Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said during the company’s third-quarter earnings call. Coinbase shares plummeted 15% after the company reported a miss on the top and bottom lines.

Ripple Labs is another major political donor this cycle that has given around $50 million to Fairshake. A spokesperson said the company committed $25 million both this year and last year and intends to remain a strong force in DC for years to come.

Coinbase's legal chief on crypto's 2024 election spending

Fairshake told CNBC it’s raised around $170 million this cycle and disbursed approximately $135 million.

The majority of the group’s funds can be traced to Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz and Ripple Labs. The remaining balance comes from a mix of companies and individual donors. Armstrong, for example, gave $1 million, while the Winklevoss twins put in $5 million.

Fairshake was launched last year by a consortium of crypto firms and is one of the top-spending PACs in 2024, even against oil companies and banks, which have historically been big political contributors. Nearly half of all the corporate money flowing into the election has come from the crypto industry, according to a report from the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen. 

Fairshake’s spending, which has targeted House and Senate races in the 2024 cycle, is effective. Public Citizen’s report found that of the 42 primary races that attracted money from crypto-backed super PACs, 36 were won by the candidate supported by the crypto industry.

Fairshake’s corporate and individual donors want crypto laws passed in the U.S.

Dixon and others say they’re looking for comprehensive market structure legislation for digital assets and a law to govern stablecoins, tokens pegged to the value of a real-world asset that are now virtually synonymous with U.S. dollar-pegged coins.

“Many industries come to DC asking to roll back rules, and we have come to DC asking to establish them,” Dixon wrote in his post Monday.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Crypto climbs and bitcoin nears all-time high ahead of U.S. election

Continue Reading

Trending