(All my decarbonization posts here – 𝐍𝐞𝐭 𝐙𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐛𝐲 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐬𝐢 – https://lnkd.in/g84YZXWt )
In an earlier post ( https://lnkd.in/g6UtxXHG ), we saw how hydrogen has an absorbing story in its energy density. It’s really a tale of two densities – very high gravimetric density, and extremely low volumetric density.
What are the implications of this life of contrasts?
𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐞: Hydrogen should be your go-to green fuel in future if you are really looking for the highest bang (energy) for your buck, when your buck is measured in weight.
𝐀𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞: You are going to be a brave chap (or one promoting a new circus in town) if you use hydrogen for anything that moves, without reducing its volume: at an energy density of 2.7 Wh/liter at STP, you will require a hydrogen tank that’s about 25000 liters (25 m3) for a typical Tesla electric car running with a 75 kWh battery pack. A Tesla’s overall “volume” will be about 15 m3 (5m x 2m x 1.5m).
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬, 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐲𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐰𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫 (25 𝐦3/15). You will be the proud source of healthy merriment and laughter all around town.
The obvious implication of the above: 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐲𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐎𝐍𝐋𝐘 𝐢𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐦𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.
The less obvious implication: 𝐁𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐲𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞.
One more less obvious implication: 𝐓𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐲𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞! (business case for producing hydrogen where it is needed)
Hydrogen is like one of those hyper-energetic, mischievous youngsters who can do amazing things when his energy is utilized, but can be quite expensive in many ways when asked to sit idle.
Where significant hydrogen needs to be stored – and these use cases will dominate in future with land, water, and air mobility sectors eyeing hydrogen as a fuel…
…welcome to the dynamic world of hydrogen storage. That will be another post.
Is plant-based meat an effective alternative to cut down CO2 emissions?
