In the future please be more clear you’re introducing a whole new step of conversion of hydrogen to ammonia, and then yet another step of conversion from ammonia back to hydrogen for use again. That’s not quite the “easy long term storage” your comment described.
It’s easy compared to the alternatives and time span for energy storage.
You can de-couple production of energy with consumption. You can transport energy by help of hydrogen either by frozen, compressed gas, cold ammonia or through pipelines. That’s easy and hands on.
Try to transport energy through batteries. Duh. Or fusion energy (somewhen). Or nuclear energy. You always need a power grid.
You can transport energy by help of hydrogen either by frozen,
CRAZY energy intensive to freeze hydrogen into a solid, and keep it stored below (–434 ºF; –259 ºC) in a storage container to prevent boiloff. Even cryogenic liquid hydrogen (at -400 ºF or -240 ºC) is a pain in the butt to deal with and store, again for boiloff reasons
compressed gas
Hydrogen is a horrible compressed gas to store. Thats the part that everyone is jumping on you about in this thread. It has to be at very high pressure, is still very low density, and leaks out of all but the best fittings and valves because of how small the H2 molecule is.
cold ammonia or through pipelines.
Ammonia may be the best form to convert hydrogen to, but that doesn’t make it good for the general use cases we’re looking to replace, meaning energy generation. You’re also handwaving away the entire infrastructure needed to convert excess hydrogen into ammonia, and then back again into hydrogen if you’re not using it as ammonia directly (which I haven’t seen you suggest yet).
That’s easy and hands on.
That’s far far from easy, and its destroying your argument of a hydrogen intense future if you keep doubling down on it.
I‘m not saying hydrogen for every use case. No. German style of arguing? Just kidding, we Germans tend to opt for one or the other, but rarely an in-between or mix.
H2O has it’s advantages in terms of transportation and long-term storage. Same as petrol, oil, and gas btw.
We need new infrastructure for the entire energy chain being based on battery, PV, wind, SAF, hydrogen, whatever. Stronger power grids, daily battery storage, electric transformers, pipelines, harbors, h2o/ ammonia generators, fuel & loading stations, all that stuff. For each of the other energies but carbons. I don’t know what’s this argument is about.
Citation needed. Hydrogen leaks in spaceflight (where hydrogen is often used as a rocket fuel) is incredibly common because H2 is so freakin’ tiny.
https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/en/greenhydrogen/ammonia-hydrogen-storage-medium.html
In the future please be more clear you’re introducing a whole new step of conversion of hydrogen to ammonia, and then yet another step of conversion from ammonia back to hydrogen for use again. That’s not quite the “easy long term storage” your comment described.
It’s easy compared to the alternatives and time span for energy storage. You can de-couple production of energy with consumption. You can transport energy by help of hydrogen either by frozen, compressed gas, cold ammonia or through pipelines. That’s easy and hands on.
Try to transport energy through batteries. Duh. Or fusion energy (somewhen). Or nuclear energy. You always need a power grid.
CRAZY energy intensive to freeze hydrogen into a solid, and keep it stored below (–434 ºF; –259 ºC) in a storage container to prevent boiloff. Even cryogenic liquid hydrogen (at -400 ºF or -240 ºC) is a pain in the butt to deal with and store, again for boiloff reasons
Hydrogen is a horrible compressed gas to store. Thats the part that everyone is jumping on you about in this thread. It has to be at very high pressure, is still very low density, and leaks out of all but the best fittings and valves because of how small the H2 molecule is.
Ammonia may be the best form to convert hydrogen to, but that doesn’t make it good for the general use cases we’re looking to replace, meaning energy generation. You’re also handwaving away the entire infrastructure needed to convert excess hydrogen into ammonia, and then back again into hydrogen if you’re not using it as ammonia directly (which I haven’t seen you suggest yet).
That’s far far from easy, and its destroying your argument of a hydrogen intense future if you keep doubling down on it.
I‘m not saying hydrogen for every use case. No. German style of arguing? Just kidding, we Germans tend to opt for one or the other, but rarely an in-between or mix.
H2O has it’s advantages in terms of transportation and long-term storage. Same as petrol, oil, and gas btw.
We need new infrastructure for the entire energy chain being based on battery, PV, wind, SAF, hydrogen, whatever. Stronger power grids, daily battery storage, electric transformers, pipelines, harbors, h2o/ ammonia generators, fuel & loading stations, all that stuff. For each of the other energies but carbons. I don’t know what’s this argument is about.