Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Plans for "Green" Hydrogen Transition in China: An Amusing Paper Involving Doubly Wasteful Energy Storage. [View all]
We hear a lot of what I regard as fossil fuel greenwashing about hydrogen, in this space often coupled with slick marketing videos about hydrogen cars, hydrogen trucks, hydrogen trains, blah, blah, blah in China. We can look forward I guess to slick videos about hydrogen food processors, hydrogen lawn mowers, and hydrogen children's toys.
Nothing is too absurd.
I spent some time a while back pointing out that hydrogen is made, with exergy destruction, overwhelmingly made by the steam reformation of dangerous fossil fuels and thus is an important driver of the extreme global heating we are now experiencing and have little hope of addressing.
A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
The paper I will briefly discuss in this post, from late July of this year reports data on the source of Chinese hydrogen used in these Potemkin fossil fuel marketing videos as of now, followed by soothsaying about the future. Note that these videos are often accompanied by pictures of Chinese solar farms, all of which will be massive piles electronic waste in about 25 years, more or less "by 2050." The fossil fuel salespersons and salesbots in this space, looking to rebrand wastefully fossil fuels as "hydrogen," are also noted for their antinuclear rhetoric, such rhetoric having been spectacularly successful in demonizing the last best, hope for driving the coal, gas, and petroleum industries out of business, and arresting the acceleration of extreme global heating, nuclear energy. The same people/bots like to post criticism of the safety of batteries while ignoring the many cases of hydrogen explosions, despite the trivial position of consumer hydrogen (which is a good thing) relative to the wide distribution of batteries.
This is the paper: Assessing Transition Pathways of Hydrogen Production in China with a Probabilistic Framework Zihan Zhen, Xunmin Ou, Yu Wang, and Sheng Zhou Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (30), 13263-13272.
Note there is talk about a "transition" in the title. People act as if there is an "energy transition" underway, which is nonsense. Things are getting worse with respect to the use of fossil fuels, not better. Talk of an "energy transition" is all soothsaying, and far more expensive than paying a psychic 25 bucks at the Jersey shore to tell you if your girlfriend who left you for a wealthy stockbroker will come back to you. Trillions of dollars have been spent on the Potemkin "energy transition," and things are getting worse faster, not better. We are using more fossil fuels than ever before.
From the introduction to the paper:
Adoption of hydrogen is a vital strategy for China to achieve its goal of carbon neutrality by 2060. In China’s net-zero future, green hydrogen is an important option for decarbonizing energy systems (1,2) and the “hard-to-abate” sectors. (3−5) However, the prerequisite for low-carbon hydrogen application is low-carbon production, which makes the decarbonization of hydrogen production particularly important. According to different hydrogen production technologies, hydrogen can be divided into three categories: gray (fossil fuel-based) hydrogen, (6−8) blue hydrogen (gray hydrogen with carbon capture and storage), (9−11) and green hydrogen (produced from water electrolysis, (12,13) thermochemistry, (14) and biomass gasification (14,15)). The transition to low-carbon green hydrogen is costly and uncertain, and a scientific and pragmatic roadmap is urgently needed to guide the transition process.
Currently, research related to quantitative roadmaps does not adequately discuss uncertainty. In fact, during the low–carbon transition, factors such as technological evolution, policy-making, and available natural resources are considerably uncertain. (16) The probabilistic framework aims to quantify the impact of the aforementioned uncertainties through large-sample simulations, which better reflects the joint effects of high-dimensional parameter uncertainties compared to conventional sensitivity analysis. (17,18) Employing a probabilistic framework to enhance uncertainty quantification will help researchers clarify the potential range of research results and further obtain statistically reliable conclusions. Moreover, it will also hold promise for advancing scientific policy-making (17) and will facilitate informed investment decisions for stakeholders. (12)
Through a detailed literature review (Table S1 summarizes the current state of relevant studies), (5,11,12,16,19−26) we found that only a few studies (1,12) have employed probabilistic frameworks, typically based on simplistic methods such as technology diffusion models. However, considering that the aforementioned methods fail to provide detailed technical characterizations and strategies for infrastructure investment and operation, energy system models remain the mainstream method in this domain. (27) It is worth noting that energy system models often entail a large number of parameters and complex model structures, which necessitate a higher demand for uncertainty analysis and are accompanied by increased challenges. (28−30) Currently, despite some attempts to incorporate probabilistic frameworks into energy system models (Table S2 summarizes the current state), (17,31−37) there have been no studies specifically focused on hydrogen production transition. It is worth noting that many researches (20,26) providing quantitative roadmaps for hydrogen low-carbon transition exhibit a notable sensitivity to cost parameters, rendering their conclusions highly questionable, (27) which further demonstrates the necessity of employing the probabilistic framework...
Currently, research related to quantitative roadmaps does not adequately discuss uncertainty. In fact, during the low–carbon transition, factors such as technological evolution, policy-making, and available natural resources are considerably uncertain. (16) The probabilistic framework aims to quantify the impact of the aforementioned uncertainties through large-sample simulations, which better reflects the joint effects of high-dimensional parameter uncertainties compared to conventional sensitivity analysis. (17,18) Employing a probabilistic framework to enhance uncertainty quantification will help researchers clarify the potential range of research results and further obtain statistically reliable conclusions. Moreover, it will also hold promise for advancing scientific policy-making (17) and will facilitate informed investment decisions for stakeholders. (12)
Through a detailed literature review (Table S1 summarizes the current state of relevant studies), (5,11,12,16,19−26) we found that only a few studies (1,12) have employed probabilistic frameworks, typically based on simplistic methods such as technology diffusion models. However, considering that the aforementioned methods fail to provide detailed technical characterizations and strategies for infrastructure investment and operation, energy system models remain the mainstream method in this domain. (27) It is worth noting that energy system models often entail a large number of parameters and complex model structures, which necessitate a higher demand for uncertainty analysis and are accompanied by increased challenges. (28−30) Currently, despite some attempts to incorporate probabilistic frameworks into energy system models (Table S2 summarizes the current state), (17,31−37) there have been no studies specifically focused on hydrogen production transition. It is worth noting that many researches (20,26) providing quantitative roadmaps for hydrogen low-carbon transition exhibit a notable sensitivity to cost parameters, rendering their conclusions highly questionable, (27) which further demonstrates the necessity of employing the probabilistic framework...
I added the bold. In other words, we have no idea how this really might work; we want to bet the farm though that it will work, somehow, in someway.
OK then...
Some more, later on, including the part that would be really, really, really amusing were it not so tragic:
The developed model covers almost all hydrogen production technologies. Figure 1 shows the concept of the developed hydrogen production model. For water electrolysis, we considered wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear as independently equipped power sources for hydrogen production. At the same time, energy storage (ES), such as lithium batteries, can be equipped to improve the utilization rate of electrolyzers (see S2.2.a), thereby diluting the fixed cost of electrolyzers per unit of hydrogen. In this study, three mainstream types of electrolyzers─alkaline (AE), proton exchange membrane (PEM), and solid-oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC)─were used. For fossil fuel-based hydrogen, the model considered coal gasification (CG), steam methane reforming (SMR), and industrial byproduct extraction (EXT). The model also considered biomass gasification (BG). At the same time, CCS can be applied to the above hydrogen production technology. In addition, the model includes nuclear-based thermochemical hydrogen production (THP). Finally, the model also considers direct hydrogen production using grid power, which will become possible as power systems gradually decarbonize.
I added the bold for the part that's, for a lack of a better term, "sick" since charging a battery loses energy to entropy (exergy destruction), discharging a battery loses energy to entropy, and electrolysis loses energy to entropy, and pressurizing hydrogen to store it, or worse, liquefy it, loses energy to entropy. In short, this is a proposal to waste energy, huge amounts of it, thus raising the external cost, the external cost being the one that actually matters, the cost to the environment and human health. The reason that one needs to waste energy by charging a battery to run an electrolyzers is because all electrolyzers exhibit hysteresis, a period of time during which they consume energy without producing any hydrogen, when they restart after being idle.
One sees these things, and one doesn't really want to believe they're being taken seriously.
Some figures from the paper follow.
The source of the primary energy to drive the electrolyzers, and the other approaches to hydrogen, including the fossil fuel marketing scheme CCS, carbon capture and storage, which has not worked, is not working and won't work, although it gets lots and lots and lots of marketing press is described in the first figure:
The caption:
Figure 1. Concept of the developed hydrogen production model with a probabilistic framework. The red arrow and rounded box illustrate the difference between process and technology (see S2.1). Nuclear is not considered to be equipped with ES, and only nuclear energy can be used for SOEC (see S2.1).
It would appear that unlike fossil fuel salespeople and salesbots here and elsewhere working to rebrand fossil fuels as "hydrogen," the Chinese have no insane hostility to the world's last, best hope of ending fossil fuel dependency, nuclear energy. Indeed they note that one electrolyzer technology, SOEC, solid oxide electrolytic cells, will not work at all with variable energy and only nuclear energy will work.
The caption refers to the supplemental data for the paper, which is free to access and can be found here: Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (30), 13263-13272 supplemental data.
Tables S9, S10, and S11 offer soothsaying about various "scenarios" - "scenario" being the IEA terms for soothsaying based on a number of "if" statements, usually involving super optimistic statements about so called "renewable energy" despite the fact that the already trillion dollar expenditures on this lipstick on the fossil fuel pig has done effectively nothing to address extreme global heating, since under the expenditures the rate of extreme global heating is accelerating, not decelerating despite these expenditures.
Only the values from the entry for 2020 are likely to be based on actual data beyond soothsaying. For convenience, I'll produce them here from table S9:
BG refers to biogas reforming, CG, to coal reforming, SMR, steam methane reforming, natural gas reforming, and EXT refers to industrial byproducts, presumably oil refining. Based on the data for 2020, which is probably the most accurate, in "percent talk" that advocates of so called "renewable energy" like to use to obscure its uselessness, 98.88% of the hydrogen used to power those Chinese devices in the ads posted here was generated by the use of dangerous fossil fuels, accompanied by exergy destruction. Solar energy produced 0.3%, hydro, 0.8%.
Are the ads misleading? Um, um, um...
Note that in figure 1, a nuclear source of hydrogen is shown that does not involve the waste associated with electrolysis, which in my view will always be a wasteful nonstarter. This is "THP," "thermochemical hydrogen production" via a thermal water splitting cycle, of which my favorite is the "SI cycle," which is amenable to process intensification in which electricity becomes a side product of a nuclear power plant. A recent publication by Chinese scientists working on this hydrogen cycle is here: Bo Ling, Zhihua Wang, Jinxu Zhang, Yong He, Yanqun Zhu, Kefa Cen, Comprehensive comparative analysis of open-loop and closed-loop iodine-sulfur thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 48, Issue 40, 2023, Pages 14941-14953
Figure 2 also shows this state of affairs, that hydrogen production in China is overwhelmingly dominated by fossil fuels now, soothsaying aside:
Figure 2. Hydrogen production transition pathways of baseline cases under the three strategies (S1–S3). Different colors represent different hydrogen production processes. The ordinate is the amount of hydrogen produced by each process.
Another figure with happy talk about electrolyzers:
Figure 5. Electrolyzer-related indicator performance. (a) Proportion of hydrogen production based on different electrolyzers from 2030 to 2060. Utilization rate and available capacity of different electrolyzers (b) AE, (c) PEM, and (d) SOEC. The dashed line under the right ordinate shows the distribution of utilization rate of electrolyzers in different years. The violin chart under the left ordinate shows the distribution of available electrolyzer capacity. The color intensity represents the average level of utilization rate. Distribution of energy source structures of (e) AE and (f) PEM. Proportion distributions of hydrogen produced through ES to total hydrogen (through non-ES and ES) based on (g) wind and (h) solar power. The distributions on the left and right represent AE and PEM, respectively.
In the conclusion, the operative sentences are these:
The increase of transition ambitions greatly increases the uncertainty of green hydrogen production. Higher transition ambitions lead to higher system costs and cost uncertainty, which drives hydrogen production to shift from resource-driven to capital-driven. Moreover, the cumulative emissions of the delayed strategy may reach 1.75 Gt, which is 3 times that of the radical strategy. The uncertainty of the emission pathways of the orderly transition strategy may reach twice that of the other strategies.
According to the soothsaying, in 2060, hydrogen production will be adding between between 0.6 to 1.75 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the planetary atmosphere. That's just optimism though; on this path things will get far worse. The distance between 2060 and now the same as the distance between 2024 and 1988. If you were alive in 1988, did you think the world would be like the one in which you live now?
Just asking...
Personally, I have no use for soothsaying; it's not data. The data is in. The atmosphere is undergoing a rapid collapse.
Have a nice Sunday.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read