What I name the “power storage conundrum” is the plain however largely unrecognized downside that electrical energy generated by intermittent renewables like wind and solar can’t preserve {an electrical} grid working with out some methodology of storing power to fulfill buyer demand in occasions of low manufacturing. These occasions of low manufacturing from wind and solar happen repeatedly — for instance, calm nights — and may persist for so long as per week or extra within the case of closely overcast and calm intervals within the winter.
If the plan is to energy the whole United States by wind and photo voltaic amenities, and if we assume that wind and photo voltaic amenities will probably be constructed ample to generate power equal to utilization over the course of a 12 months, we then must do a calculation of how a lot storage could be required to stability the occasions of extra manufacturing in opposition to these of inadequate manufacturing so as to get by way of the 12 months with out blackouts. The problem of getting by way of a complete 12 months might require way more storage than merely getting by way of a week-long wind/solar drought, as a result of each wind and solar are seasonal, producing way more in some seasons than others.
Earlier posts on this weblog have cited to a number of competent calculations of the quantity of storage wanted for various jurisdictions to get by way of a full 12 months with solely wind and solar to generate the electrical energy. For the case of the whole United States, this submit from January 2022 describes work of Ken Gregory, who calculates a storage requirement, primarily based on the present stage of electrical energy consumption, of roughly 250,000 GWH to get by way of a 12 months. If you happen to then assume as a part of the decarbonization challenge the electrification of all at present non-electrified sectors of the financial system (transportation, residence warmth, trade, agriculture, and many others.), the storage requirement would roughly triple, to 750,000 GWH. If that storage requirement is to be met by batteries, and we value the quantity of storage wanted on the value of the most effective currently-available batteries (Tesla-type lithium ion batteries), we get an upfront capital price within the vary of a whole bunch of trillions of {dollars}. That price alone could be a big a number of of the whole U.S. GDP, and clearly would render the whole decarbonization challenge unimaginable. As well as, lithium-ion kind batteries (and all different currently-available batteries) don’t have the flexibility to retailer energy for months on finish, as from the summer season to the winter, with out dissipation, after which discharge over the course of further months. In different phrases, the fantasy of a totally wind/photo voltaic power financial system backed up solely by batteries is doomed to shortly run into an impenetrable wall.
So is there one other method to decarbonization that would work? With nuclear blocked by the identical environmentalists who oppose all use of fossil fuels, the choices are few. Essentially the most believable could be to make use of hydrogen because the technique of storage to stability the random swings of wind and photo voltaic electrical energy technology.
It’s not like no person has considered this to this point. Certainly, to politicians and activists who can freely hold forth about theoretical options with out having to fret about sensible obstacles or prices, hydrogen looks like it couldn’t be simpler. With hydrogen, you’ll be able to simply fully reduce carbon out of the power cycle: make the hydrogen from water, retailer it till you want it, after which when the necessity arises burn it to supply power with solely water because the by-product.
Again in 2003, then-President George W. Bush proposed precisely such a system in his State of the Union deal with:
In his 2003 State of the Union Deal with, President Bush launched his Hydrogen Gas Initiative. The aim of this initiative is to work in partnership with the non-public sector to speed up the analysis and improvement required for a hydrogen financial system. The President’s Hydrogen Gas Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership are offering practically $1.72 billion to develop hydrogen-powered gas cells, hydrogen infrastructure applied sciences, and superior vehicle applied sciences. The President’s Initiative will allow the commercialization of gas cell automobiles within the 2020 timeframe.
Gas cell (that’s, hydrogen-fueled) vehicles by 2020. Nothing to it!
Maybe you haven’t seen any massive variety of hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the roads right here in 2022. How’s it going with the challenge to supply the hydrogen by a carbon-free technique of electrolysis from water (generally referred to as “inexperienced hydrogen”)? That is from the JP Morgan Wealth Administration 2022 Annual Power Paper (web page 39):
Present inexperienced hydrogen manufacturing is negligible. . . .
The answer appears so terribly apparent, and but no person is doing it. What’s fallacious with all people?
The abstract of the reply is that hydrogen within the type of a free fuel is way more costly to supply than good previous pure fuel (aka methane or CH4), and upon getting it, it’s inferior in each respect to pure fuel as a gas for operating the power system (aside from the difficulty of carbon emissions, if you happen to suppose these are an issue). Hydrogen is way tougher and expensive than pure fuel to move, to retailer and to deal with. It’s way more harmful and topic to exploding. It’s a lot much less dense by quantity, which makes it notably much less helpful for transportation purposes like vehicles and airplanes.
And naturally there is no such thing as a demonstration challenge at massive scale to indicate how a hydrogen-based energy system would work or how a lot it might price after together with the entire extras and present unknowns not only for producing it but in addition for transporting it and dealing with it safely.
Listed below are only a few of the problems that come up in consideration of hydrogen as the best way to decarbonize:
- Price of “inexperienced” hydrogen versus pure fuel. Lately, previous to the previous couple of months, pure fuel costs have ranged between about $2 and $6 per million BTUs within the U.S. The worth spike of the previous few months has taken the value of pure fuel to about $9/MMBTUs. In the meantime, in accordance with this December 2020 piece at Searching for Alpha, the value for “inexperienced” hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water is within the vary of $4 to $6 per kg, which interprets, in accordance with Searching for Alpha, to $32 to $48 per MMBTU. In different phrases, even with the very dramatic current rise within the value of pure fuel, it’s nonetheless 3 to five occasions cheaper to acquire than “inexperienced” hydrogen. There are some who predict dramatic future value declines for “inexperienced” hydrogen, and likewise continued value will increase for pure fuel. Possibly. However with costs the place they’re now, or anyplace shut, no person goes to make main purchases of “inexperienced” hydrogen because the backup gas for intermittent renewables; and with out patrons, no person will produce massive quantities of the stuff.
- How a lot overbuild of solar/wind technology capability could be required to supply the “inexperienced” hydrogen? Actually breathtaking quantities of incremental photo voltaic panels and/or wind generators could be required to make sufficient “inexperienced” hydrogen to turn out to be a significant consider backing up a grid primarily powered by the solar and wind. The Searching for Alpha piece has calculations of how a lot nameplate photo voltaic panel capability it might take to supply sufficient “inexperienced” hydrogen to energy only one small dimension (288 MW) GE turbine generator. The reply is, the photo voltaic nameplate capability to do the job could be shut to 10 occasions the capability of the plant that will use the hydrogen: “Think about the broadly deployed GE 9F.04 fuel turbine, which produces 288 MW of energy. With 100% hydrogen gas, GE states that this turbine would use about 9.3 million CF or 22,400 kg of hydrogen per hour. With an 80% environment friendly electrolysis power price of 49.3 kWh/kg, producing that one hour provide of hydrogen would require 1,104 MWh of energy for electrolysis. To generate the hydrogen to run the turbine for 12 hours (~ nightfall to daybreak) would require 12 x 1,104 MWh, or 13.2 GWh. Given a typical 20% photo voltaic capability issue, that will require about 2.6 GW of photo voltaic nameplate capability devoted to producing the hydrogen to gas this 288 MW generator in a single day.” Given the great losses within the course of of constructing the hydrogen after which changing it again into electrical energy, it’s virtually unimaginable to conceive that this course of might ever be price aggressive with simply burning pure fuel.
- Making sufficient “inexperienced” hydrogen to energy the nation means electrolyzing the ocean. The ocean is successfully infinite as a supply of water, however contemporary water provides are restricted. If you happen to electrolyze salt water, you get massive quantities of extremely poisonous chlorine. There are folks engaged on options to this gigantic downside, however as of now it’s all within the laboratory stage. Incremental prices of getting your “inexperienced” hydrogen from the ocean are an entire wild card.
- Hydrogen is way much less power dense than gasoline by quantity. For a lot of functions, and notably for the aim of transportation gas, it’s extremely related that hydrogen is way much less dense than gasoline by quantity. Even liquid hydrogen has an power density by quantity that’s solely one-quarter that of gasoline (8 MJ/L versus 32 MJ/L), that means that a lot bigger a gas tank; and liquid hydrogen must be stored on the ridiculously chilly temperature of -253 deg C. Alternatively, you’ll be able to compress the fuel, however then you might be speaking extra like a ten occasions power density drawback. Both compressing the fuel or changing to liquid would require massive quantities of further power, which is an extra price not but figured into the calculations.
- Hydrogen makes metal pipelines extra brittle. Hydrogen is way more tough than pure fuel to move and deal with. Most current fuel pipelines are product of metal, and hydrogen has an impact on metal referred to as “embrittlement,” that makes the pipes develop cracks and leaks over time. Cracks and leaks can result in explosions. Additionally, due to the volumetric power density problem, current pure fuel pipelines can carry far much less power if used to hold hydrogen.
I don’t understand how a lot additional our power would price if we forcibly removed all hydrocarbons and shifted to wind and photo voltaic backed up by “inexperienced” hydrogen — and neither does anyone else. An informed guess could be that the all-in price of power would get multiplied by one thing within the vary of 5 to 10.
Learn the complete article right here.
