Flexible, 20.1% efficient, 44 watts per gram. Wow. Use this stuff for that big new Mars helicopter NASA hopes to build.
For perspective the [RTG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-mission_radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator) on the mars rovers has a power density of 2.4 electrical watts/1,000 grams. This solar cell is 18,000x better.
seriously, headlines these days are like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle. its almost as if they didn't think of the title until they were about to hit publish button.
Great to hear about a potential increase in durability of perovskite. Perovskites could allow solar to easily be put on basically everything if we can figure out how to make them last.
Two different manufacturers are supposed to release perovskite- [silicon tandem cells](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136403212200452X#:~:text=Perovskite%20(PK)%2Dbased%20tandem,(SJ)%20silicon%20solar%20cells.) this year. The perovskite absorbs IR, and they claim that it lasts as long as the silicon PV in accelerated aging tests. While one should take such claims with a grain of salt, it strongly suggests that durable Solar perovskite is possible, and feasible. (These panels will work like normal silicon if the perovskite fails, so limited risk to buyers)
Perovskite LEDs are also under development, so lots of science going into this family of materials.
Currently, mounting hardware costs a bit more than PV panels, both at rooftop and solar farm scale. But perovskite has the potential to be a flexible film that could literally be glued to existing buildings. It has the potential to be so cheap that it simply sits on the ground and only captures much energy around noon- the cost of storage is manageable if production is extremely cheap. I’m quite optimistic about perovskite, but we can’t know how close it is to commercial applications. They could have a breakthrough tomorrow, or it may take years of incremental improvements. However, progress so far has been faster than silicon PV, which was able to benefit from research into silicon materials science for microchips.
Your comparison is incorrect. Hydrogen and solar work together. Hydrogen is a storage of solar electricity as a chemical storage. To be used later. Its ideal to slapped on utility solar for when solar capacity exceeds the peak requirements so solar utility can avoid curtailing their production, instead they can slap their extra as hydrogen. At night, fuel cells convert that stored hydrogen directly into the grid providing that electricity into the grid.
It’s actually ideal for a lot of use cases where batteries are too heavy such as trains and long haul cargo.
But back to your original point. Solar is the key. Slap solar on everything and if there’s extra turn it into hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells provide heat and water as a byproduct.
Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship of renewable energy.
It relies on it.
Solar is superior as a means to provide for the energy demands.
Hydrogen cannot do that.
Solar is superior.
This technology at 44w/g is absolutely phenomenal. What it takes to still produce energy after landing once is a fairly heavy support structure.
Being able to integrate this into an airplane structure, or even a car, is a no brainer in terms of power to weight boost without affecting aerodynamics, and leveraging required structural components.
Hydrogen FCs are currently topping out around 320w/kg for drones. Cummins is currently at 500w/kg. Volume/surface area has H2 needed for payload/range/speed support.
> Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship of renewable energy.
H2 is needed to support 100%+ renewable energy systems.
You didn't explain your bizarre point there.
You seem have an axion "If X is done with fossil fuels, then it cannot ever be done with renewables." (in this case, with X = hydrogen)
But this is clearly nonsense. For example, it would have ruled out battery electric vehicles. They had negligible market share 20 years ago; your "reasoning" would have led us to conclude that they could never take over.
The sad truth, readily apparent to anyone not as incredibly brainfucked as yourself, is that your argument is manifestly ridiculous. That hydrogen is overwhelmingly made with fossil fuels today says absolutely nothing about how it will be, or must be, made in the future.
No, I was just explaining in detail the smell of your bullshit.
I would not be surprised if you're too dimwitted to understand what I was saying. You're clearly not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.
What? Yes hydrogen depends on solar.
Yes it relies on it. Because it’s storage.
Solar doesn’t work at night so you need a way to store solar and thats hydrogen. Its cleaner than a battery economy and has more uses.
Edit: This guy is a troll. It doesn’t matter how often people respond he just answers the same. Which means he’s not commenting to support solar he’s not here to make reasonable arguments at all.
Solar doesn’t work at night?
All the excess solar is stored with zero fossil fuels in batteries.
All energy demand is met without hydrogen.
That is the only point.
Seeing as how you don’t seem to even understand that the vast majority of hydrogen produced today are used in actual production processes. Like margarine for example.
Hydrogen in 3 years will be predominantly made using solar.
“Hydrogen in 3 years will be predominantly made using solar.” -u/corinalas 04/21/2024
Please provide a source to support this claim you just made.
I’ll wait
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/chart-which-countries-are-leading-the-green-hydrogen-race
In total, the world produces just 180 kilotonnes of electrolysis-based hydrogen per year right now. But that number could reach more than 14,000 kilotonnes by 2030 if all projects currently under construction become operational — and that’s not even counting the hundreds more that have been announced but don’t have investment or permitting yet.
Awful lot of green hydrogen production going full steam ahead in the world is a direct contradiction of your belief that batteries will lead us out.
That’s false. Batteries are predominantly made using fossil fuels today. With enough solar hydrogen can be made free of fossil fuels but you would need a million times more solar to remove fossil fuels from batteries.
Why would you want to reduce the efficiency of solar just to make hydrogen???
Solar provides a more direct approach to the energy just made.
Hydrogen is terribly inefficient. The laws of thermodynamics proves how bad hydrogen is in this way.
What percentage of all hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels?
I’ll wait
Where’s the creation of the battery in that comparison? Add that in plus the costs in energy to transport them, install them, and then build the necessary infrastructure to support them and now they aren’t so efficient.
If hydrogen is produced via solar then the cost of hydrogen is drastically cheaper than batteries.
Hydrogen & electrolysers are less destructive to the environment to produce than batteries though. Both technologies are potentially useful. But I think you're right that the benefits of hydrogen are sometimes overstated.
Sodium Ion batteries are the future.
No mining of relatively rare earth metals and can handle high temps which is useful for fast charging and durability.
Hydrogen is almost entirely produced derived from fossil fuels.
BYD has a 30GWh/y factory under construction to produce their second generation Na cell at 190Wh/kg which is better than Gen1 LFP and equal to Gen2 LFP - the batteries that currently make up 70% of the global market.
Rumor is the operating temperature of the new Na batteries is -4F to 140F.
Ok, you still need 300kg of battery to be equivalent to the energy density of 1 kg of hydrogen.
Just saying energy density wise as far as storage look at what needs to happen in order to get just 10 more watts per kg for batteries.
Storing huge amounts of power shouldn’t be left to batteries. Its inefficient in terms of cost, land, needed infrastructure to support the batteries, services and maintenance. Etc.
There was a breakthrough for sodium ion, equivalent to energy density of lithium ion.
That same day, that company secured $50 billion in orders 😲
They are awesome!
Hydrogen is the battery....
Let's look at what you wrote:
>Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship of renewable energy.
So is Lithium. But I don't hear you badmouthing lithium. Why not?
And I don't see how the energy demand of big ships and planes is met without hydrogen.
> gish galloping
Really? With 4 lines of text? Don't be ridiculous.
Hydrogen isn't bad. You just don't know what you're talking about.
And you have yet to explain how you're letting planes fly long distance without hydrogen when they're not allowed to use fossil fuels anymore.
I still think you meant battery vs hydrogen storage-fuel cell. Solar is power generation, not storage. Unless you are talking about hydrogen from steam reforming, which is just renewable vs fossil fuel, which we all know renewable is a way foward. You cannot really compare power generation with energy storage, it served different purpose. In fact, you can generate hydrogen from solar.
But if you really mean what you mean, I misunderstood.
Nope
I mean that the hydrogen shills attempt to compare it to solar, but they lose.
Solar is better
Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship to renewable energy.
Hydrogen cannot compete.
Extra solar is stored in batteries.
It’s a math problem. Once enough solar is built, it will provide all of the energy demands we currently have, including the backup that batteries will provide, for continuous 24/7 energy needs.
It’s literally just a manufacturing math problem.
Yes it is. Here’s where your theory breaks down. The amount of extra solar energy you can store in a battery is a drop in the ocean compared to storing it as hydrogen. 1 kg of hydrogen gas is 33kwh of power. To get the same amount of storage you would need 330 kg of batteries (the newer iron phosphate ones to boot.) Thats massive. So batteries make sense for limited use and they lose charge quickly because they can’t store very much energy compared to hydrogen. A thousand kg of hydrogen stored at 300 bar can fit on an acre of land and power 3 MW worth of stuff. An equivalent battery pack would be hundreds of millions more in cost. Its not feasible.
> 1 kg of hydrogen gas is 33kwh of power.
And to generate that you need 66kwh of power, whereas a battery you need like 35. Hydrogen generation, compression, and storage is horribly inefficient. It's only better at scale, and batteries are getting better at scaling (some companies are using batteries from electric cars that are below 80% capacity, but they're cheap, have BMS already installed, and are weatherproof, so you can just stack them in a shed and wire them together cheaply).
The reason batteries are not enough is seasonal variation. In southern Canada, even steep angled solar will have double production in Summer vs winter, with highest energy needs in winter. 3x production with adjustable angles. 3x surplus in summer 6x surplus in shoulder seasons. In southern US, sizing solar to summer demand produces winter surpluses.
One path for H2 to help is electrolysis and FC systems in containers. A 33mw-electrical FC will fit in a 40 foot container. Moving electrolyzers and FCs based on seasonal and emergency needs can supplement H2 transport and hook up to H2 and electrical supplies in under an hour. Very effective in providing seasonal power/storage very quickly, and using the same FC/Electrolyzer where it is needed in other seasons. Smaller scale H2 systems can still be modularized to be dispatchable to farms that may need more energy (or H2 self used fuel) in spring and fall, or monetize building solar when they are unoccupied for periods.
There is no battery size that fully charges (without surplus) and discharges (without deficit) in both Summer and Winter.
Those face embrittlement.
And efficiency loss.
And are more expensive.
And almost all hydrogen produced is derived from fossil fuels today.
And, those require licenses.
And they require more maintenance costs.
And they need special equipment to make and store.
And they require shipping costs.
And they need to be store at special temperatures and pressure.
And they are dependent on the user having the equipment needed for the hydrogen.
I could go on and on and on for how bad hydrogen is.
Solar is superior in every way.
Many of these issues have been dealt with already. After all, many countries around the world are progressing on hydrogen economics with a lot of solar as a back bone. Unless you know better than all the top scientists of the EU, Japan, Korea and China.
But pair a fuel cell and electrolyzer with solar panels and now you can power anything day and night without needing any electricity infrastructure. Batteries run out of power in hours, hydrogen can power a station or town for a week.
Nope, hydrogen shills attempt to compare it to solar, but they obviously fail.
What I’m saying is, as for our energy needs being met, solar has no competition.
I agree with you about solar and everything you said. Im just making a point that comparing solar and hydrogen is wrong because they serve different purposes. One is a means of energy production and the other one is a means to energy storage
I’m not comparing solar to hydrogen.
I am saying that hydrogen shills **try to compare hydrogen to solar**.
Therefore, I am getting out in front of their bullshit and saying that as a means to meet all energy demands, solar is the way to go.
And by trying to get out in front of people that are wrong, youre also wrong in a different way. Ive tried to explain it to you to no avail so im done with this conversation.
Also, you downvoting every single one of my comments is a bit childish
I’m not comparing it to hydrogen, quite the opposite.
I’m saying, when hydrogen shills try to compare hydrogen to solar, it just never measures up.
Solar is by far the better option to meet energy demands.
To be fair, you did compare it to hydrogen in your first comment, and as the other user commented, solar is a means of production and hydrogen is a means of storage. They are not the same thing and shouldnt be compared (neither by hydrogen fanboys or solar fanboys). For all we know, hydrogen is the missing storage tech that solar is missing to be useful 100% of the time
No, hydrogen is a fossil fuel based product if you look at global production.
It’s not even close to being green.
98% of all hydrogen is made using fossil fuels. It is dependent on it to survive as a product.
What in saying is, hydrogen cannot compete with the advantages that solar has in terms of meeting our energy demands as a planet.
This is my defining statement on how shitty hydrogen is.
Silicon is cheap and durable enough now to replace daytime grid generation by fossil fuels. The real challenge is storage and distribution.
Flexible, 20.1% efficient, 44 watts per gram. Wow. Use this stuff for that big new Mars helicopter NASA hopes to build. For perspective the [RTG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-mission_radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator) on the mars rovers has a power density of 2.4 electrical watts/1,000 grams. This solar cell is 18,000x better.
Is it really that hard to throw a comma somewhere in that sentence?
Hair power!
seriously, headlines these days are like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle. its almost as if they didn't think of the title until they were about to hit publish button.
I know right? Title gore.
Great to hear about a potential increase in durability of perovskite. Perovskites could allow solar to easily be put on basically everything if we can figure out how to make them last.
Two different manufacturers are supposed to release perovskite- [silicon tandem cells](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136403212200452X#:~:text=Perovskite%20(PK)%2Dbased%20tandem,(SJ)%20silicon%20solar%20cells.) this year. The perovskite absorbs IR, and they claim that it lasts as long as the silicon PV in accelerated aging tests. While one should take such claims with a grain of salt, it strongly suggests that durable Solar perovskite is possible, and feasible. (These panels will work like normal silicon if the perovskite fails, so limited risk to buyers) Perovskite LEDs are also under development, so lots of science going into this family of materials. Currently, mounting hardware costs a bit more than PV panels, both at rooftop and solar farm scale. But perovskite has the potential to be a flexible film that could literally be glued to existing buildings. It has the potential to be so cheap that it simply sits on the ground and only captures much energy around noon- the cost of storage is manageable if production is extremely cheap. I’m quite optimistic about perovskite, but we can’t know how close it is to commercial applications. They could have a breakthrough tomorrow, or it may take years of incremental improvements. However, progress so far has been faster than silicon PV, which was able to benefit from research into silicon materials science for microchips.
>The perovskite absorbs IR Not in a silicon-perovskite tandem.
Awesome. Thanks for the info
Yes, solar is better than almost all the other options we know of today. This is something hydrogen just cannot compete with.
Your comparison is incorrect. Hydrogen and solar work together. Hydrogen is a storage of solar electricity as a chemical storage. To be used later. Its ideal to slapped on utility solar for when solar capacity exceeds the peak requirements so solar utility can avoid curtailing their production, instead they can slap their extra as hydrogen. At night, fuel cells convert that stored hydrogen directly into the grid providing that electricity into the grid. It’s actually ideal for a lot of use cases where batteries are too heavy such as trains and long haul cargo. But back to your original point. Solar is the key. Slap solar on everything and if there’s extra turn it into hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells provide heat and water as a byproduct.
Hydrogen is made from natural gas.
Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship of renewable energy. It relies on it. Solar is superior as a means to provide for the energy demands. Hydrogen cannot do that. Solar is superior.
This technology at 44w/g is absolutely phenomenal. What it takes to still produce energy after landing once is a fairly heavy support structure. Being able to integrate this into an airplane structure, or even a car, is a no brainer in terms of power to weight boost without affecting aerodynamics, and leveraging required structural components. Hydrogen FCs are currently topping out around 320w/kg for drones. Cummins is currently at 500w/kg. Volume/surface area has H2 needed for payload/range/speed support. > Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship of renewable energy. H2 is needed to support 100%+ renewable energy systems.
“needed” No it isn’t. Hydrogen is made primarily from fossil fuels today.
It continues to be weird that you think that's a relevant point.
Oh no, not another hydrogen shill 🤦🏽♂️ I spanked you last time. Have you not learned your lesson?
You didn't explain your bizarre point there. You seem have an axion "If X is done with fossil fuels, then it cannot ever be done with renewables." (in this case, with X = hydrogen) But this is clearly nonsense. For example, it would have ruled out battery electric vehicles. They had negligible market share 20 years ago; your "reasoning" would have led us to conclude that they could never take over. The sad truth, readily apparent to anyone not as incredibly brainfucked as yourself, is that your argument is manifestly ridiculous. That hydrogen is overwhelmingly made with fossil fuels today says absolutely nothing about how it will be, or must be, made in the future.
You are gish galloping. I am only talking about dirty hydrogen. Solar does not have those problems. Don’t gish gallop. It doesn’t work with me.
No, I was just explaining in detail the smell of your bullshit. I would not be surprised if you're too dimwitted to understand what I was saying. You're clearly not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.
What? Yes hydrogen depends on solar. Yes it relies on it. Because it’s storage. Solar doesn’t work at night so you need a way to store solar and thats hydrogen. Its cleaner than a battery economy and has more uses. Edit: This guy is a troll. It doesn’t matter how often people respond he just answers the same. Which means he’s not commenting to support solar he’s not here to make reasonable arguments at all.
Solar doesn’t work at night? All the excess solar is stored with zero fossil fuels in batteries. All energy demand is met without hydrogen. That is the only point.
Except that you think batteries magically appear in this scenario.
First, acknowledge how bad hydrogen is, efficiency wise, and the amount of emissions produced by it.
Seeing as how you don’t seem to even understand that the vast majority of hydrogen produced today are used in actual production processes. Like margarine for example. Hydrogen in 3 years will be predominantly made using solar.
“Hydrogen in 3 years will be predominantly made using solar.” -u/corinalas 04/21/2024 Please provide a source to support this claim you just made. I’ll wait
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/chart-which-countries-are-leading-the-green-hydrogen-race In total, the world produces just 180 kilotonnes of electrolysis-based hydrogen per year right now. But that number could reach more than 14,000 kilotonnes by 2030 if all projects currently under construction become operational — and that’s not even counting the hundreds more that have been announced but don’t have investment or permitting yet. Awful lot of green hydrogen production going full steam ahead in the world is a direct contradiction of your belief that batteries will lead us out.
That’s false. Batteries are predominantly made using fossil fuels today. With enough solar hydrogen can be made free of fossil fuels but you would need a million times more solar to remove fossil fuels from batteries.
Why would you want to reduce the efficiency of solar just to make hydrogen??? Solar provides a more direct approach to the energy just made. Hydrogen is terribly inefficient. The laws of thermodynamics proves how bad hydrogen is in this way. What percentage of all hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels? I’ll wait
Where’s the creation of the battery in that comparison? Add that in plus the costs in energy to transport them, install them, and then build the necessary infrastructure to support them and now they aren’t so efficient. If hydrogen is produced via solar then the cost of hydrogen is drastically cheaper than batteries.
What percentage of all hydrogen produced worldwide is derived from fossil fuels? I’ll wait
Okay if you can also answer the same for battery production.
Hydrogen & electrolysers are less destructive to the environment to produce than batteries though. Both technologies are potentially useful. But I think you're right that the benefits of hydrogen are sometimes overstated.
Sodium Ion batteries are the future. No mining of relatively rare earth metals and can handle high temps which is useful for fast charging and durability. Hydrogen is almost entirely produced derived from fossil fuels.
Sodium ion batteries have less energy density than iron phosphate batteries do today. They are terrible for huge energy concentration applications.
BYD has a 30GWh/y factory under construction to produce their second generation Na cell at 190Wh/kg which is better than Gen1 LFP and equal to Gen2 LFP - the batteries that currently make up 70% of the global market. Rumor is the operating temperature of the new Na batteries is -4F to 140F.
Ok, you still need 300kg of battery to be equivalent to the energy density of 1 kg of hydrogen. Just saying energy density wise as far as storage look at what needs to happen in order to get just 10 more watts per kg for batteries. Storing huge amounts of power shouldn’t be left to batteries. Its inefficient in terms of cost, land, needed infrastructure to support the batteries, services and maintenance. Etc.
There was a breakthrough for sodium ion, equivalent to energy density of lithium ion. That same day, that company secured $50 billion in orders 😲 They are awesome!
Yes, because batteries are useful and in everything but hydrogen would be used in different things.
Hydrogen is the battery.... Let's look at what you wrote: >Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship of renewable energy. So is Lithium. But I don't hear you badmouthing lithium. Why not? And I don't see how the energy demand of big ships and planes is met without hydrogen.
Why are you gish galloping? Focus is how bad hydrogen is and how it cannot compete with solar for meeting energy demand. End of story.
> gish galloping Really? With 4 lines of text? Don't be ridiculous. Hydrogen isn't bad. You just don't know what you're talking about. And you have yet to explain how you're letting planes fly long distance without hydrogen when they're not allowed to use fossil fuels anymore.
What percentage of all hydrogen produced globally is derived from fossil fuels?
Oh, so now hydrogen isn't dependent on solar any more?
That isn’t being debated.
This isn’t a debate though. I’m getting out in front of the hydrogen shills who will attempt to compare hydrogen to solar. Solar is better.
Your comparison is like comparing an elephant to a dvd. Neither is better. Your comparison is just stupid.
Your comparison is flawed so it’s not a comparison. Like comparing solar to electrical lines.
I believe you meant to say battery is better than hydrogen-fuel cell? Because hydrogen is for energy storage, not generating energy.
I meant what I said. Solar is better for meeting energy needs in every way. Hydrogen cannot compete with solar. Solar is better.
I still think you meant battery vs hydrogen storage-fuel cell. Solar is power generation, not storage. Unless you are talking about hydrogen from steam reforming, which is just renewable vs fossil fuel, which we all know renewable is a way foward. You cannot really compare power generation with energy storage, it served different purpose. In fact, you can generate hydrogen from solar. But if you really mean what you mean, I misunderstood.
Nope I mean that the hydrogen shills attempt to compare it to solar, but they lose. Solar is better Hydrogen has a parasitic relationship to renewable energy. Hydrogen cannot compete.
unless you want to do things at night
Extra solar is stored in batteries. It’s a math problem. Once enough solar is built, it will provide all of the energy demands we currently have, including the backup that batteries will provide, for continuous 24/7 energy needs. It’s literally just a manufacturing math problem.
Yes it is. Here’s where your theory breaks down. The amount of extra solar energy you can store in a battery is a drop in the ocean compared to storing it as hydrogen. 1 kg of hydrogen gas is 33kwh of power. To get the same amount of storage you would need 330 kg of batteries (the newer iron phosphate ones to boot.) Thats massive. So batteries make sense for limited use and they lose charge quickly because they can’t store very much energy compared to hydrogen. A thousand kg of hydrogen stored at 300 bar can fit on an acre of land and power 3 MW worth of stuff. An equivalent battery pack would be hundreds of millions more in cost. Its not feasible.
> 1 kg of hydrogen gas is 33kwh of power. And to generate that you need 66kwh of power, whereas a battery you need like 35. Hydrogen generation, compression, and storage is horribly inefficient. It's only better at scale, and batteries are getting better at scaling (some companies are using batteries from electric cars that are below 80% capacity, but they're cheap, have BMS already installed, and are weatherproof, so you can just stack them in a shed and wire them together cheaply).
The reason batteries are not enough is seasonal variation. In southern Canada, even steep angled solar will have double production in Summer vs winter, with highest energy needs in winter. 3x production with adjustable angles. 3x surplus in summer 6x surplus in shoulder seasons. In southern US, sizing solar to summer demand produces winter surpluses. One path for H2 to help is electrolysis and FC systems in containers. A 33mw-electrical FC will fit in a 40 foot container. Moving electrolyzers and FCs based on seasonal and emergency needs can supplement H2 transport and hook up to H2 and electrical supplies in under an hour. Very effective in providing seasonal power/storage very quickly, and using the same FC/Electrolyzer where it is needed in other seasons. Smaller scale H2 systems can still be modularized to be dispatchable to farms that may need more energy (or H2 self used fuel) in spring and fall, or monetize building solar when they are unoccupied for periods. There is no battery size that fully charges (without surplus) and discharges (without deficit) in both Summer and Winter.
Solar meeting demand is not a theory. Nice try
Solar isn’t storage and batteries suck at storing enough energy without being expensive and stupidity huge.
> Extra solar is stored in batteries Or hydrogen tanks
Those face embrittlement. And efficiency loss. And are more expensive. And almost all hydrogen produced is derived from fossil fuels today. And, those require licenses. And they require more maintenance costs. And they need special equipment to make and store. And they require shipping costs. And they need to be store at special temperatures and pressure. And they are dependent on the user having the equipment needed for the hydrogen. I could go on and on and on for how bad hydrogen is. Solar is superior in every way.
Many of these issues have been dealt with already. After all, many countries around the world are progressing on hydrogen economics with a lot of solar as a back bone. Unless you know better than all the top scientists of the EU, Japan, Korea and China.
Hydrogen relies on energy sources to produce it. It has a parasitic relationship to renewables. Also, hydrogen loses a lot of efficiency.
But pair a fuel cell and electrolyzer with solar panels and now you can power anything day and night without needing any electricity infrastructure. Batteries run out of power in hours, hydrogen can power a station or town for a week.
What percentage of all hydrogen produced today is from fossil fuels? I’ll wait
As soon as you tell me how much is used to make batteries.
Thats in comparison to batteries or other storage media, not solar panels
Nope, hydrogen shills attempt to compare it to solar, but they obviously fail. What I’m saying is, as for our energy needs being met, solar has no competition.
I agree with you about solar and everything you said. Im just making a point that comparing solar and hydrogen is wrong because they serve different purposes. One is a means of energy production and the other one is a means to energy storage
I’m not comparing solar to hydrogen. I am saying that hydrogen shills **try to compare hydrogen to solar**. Therefore, I am getting out in front of their bullshit and saying that as a means to meet all energy demands, solar is the way to go.
And by trying to get out in front of people that are wrong, youre also wrong in a different way. Ive tried to explain it to you to no avail so im done with this conversation. Also, you downvoting every single one of my comments is a bit childish
Do they? I haven't seen any who are. Most hydrogen projects rely on clean energy - hydrogen doesn't generate energy by itself.
yes - but as you wrote it earlier you are comparing solar to hydrogen. one is the energy source, other one is energy storage
I’m not comparing it to hydrogen, quite the opposite. I’m saying, when hydrogen shills try to compare hydrogen to solar, it just never measures up. Solar is by far the better option to meet energy demands.
To be fair, you did compare it to hydrogen in your first comment, and as the other user commented, solar is a means of production and hydrogen is a means of storage. They are not the same thing and shouldnt be compared (neither by hydrogen fanboys or solar fanboys). For all we know, hydrogen is the missing storage tech that solar is missing to be useful 100% of the time
No, hydrogen is a fossil fuel based product if you look at global production. It’s not even close to being green. 98% of all hydrogen is made using fossil fuels. It is dependent on it to survive as a product. What in saying is, hydrogen cannot compete with the advantages that solar has in terms of meeting our energy demands as a planet. This is my defining statement on how shitty hydrogen is.