[HN Gopher] Seawater split to produce green hydrogen
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Seawater split to produce green hydrogen
        
       Author : tech2
       Score  : 26 points
       Date   : 2023-02-04 17:57 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.adelaide.edu.au)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.adelaide.edu.au)
        
       | WithinReason wrote:
       | _We have split natural seawater into oxygen and hydrogen with
       | nearly 100 per cent efficiency_
       | 
       | What % efficiency does "nearly 100% efficiency" mean in this
       | context?
        
         | tech2 wrote:
         | I'd wondered the same, but even with that question hanging I
         | think the outcome of being able to electrolyse sea water
         | directly was interesting.
        
         | phkahler wrote:
         | Seems like a good first step in desalination.
        
           | pixl97 wrote:
           | Seems more like a way to increase salination. Instead to me
           | it sounds like a way to take solar and convert it into a
           | hydrogen storage battery.
        
         | andrewflnr wrote:
         | I read it as with exactly the same number of joules of
         | electricity as the enthalpy of formation of the water they
         | electrolyze (not sure about the terminology, it's been a while
         | since I took chemistry). Basically the electricity supplies
         | exactly enough energy to pop off the hydrogens.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | Another electrolyzer. It runs on unpurified seawater. But for how
       | long? Where does the salt go? What is throughput like? How do
       | they keep the thing from crudding up? And what happened with the
       | last five promoted articles for new electrolyzers?
        
         | andrewflnr wrote:
         | Don't know about the rest, but the salt can probably just stay
         | dissolved. Their feedstock is cheap, costing a bit of pump
         | electricity at worse, so I assume they can turn just a little
         | bit of it into gas and toss the rest overboard.
        
           | samtho wrote:
           | You will quickly reach a max saturation unless you are
           | letting water simply run through it. Regardless, the act of
           | running water with impurities through any medium will result
           | in deposits.
        
             | andrewflnr wrote:
             | Just letting it run through, or otherwise cycling it really
             | quickly and cheaply, does seem possible to me. I'd be
             | interested to know if there are any fundamental reasons you
             | can't let it flow, like if water moving past the electrodes
             | decreases efficiency or something. You would at least need
             | to watch out for the current taking away your product.
             | 
             | Deposits, yeah, but that alone doesn't sound like a
             | showstopper. This is far from the first engineering
             | application to use seawater, there are probably ideas out
             | there that they can borrow.
        
       | andrewflnr wrote:
       | From the abstract of the linked Nature article[0]:
       | 
       | > This is achieved by introducing a Lewis acid layer (for
       | example, Cr2O3) on transition metal oxide catalysts to
       | dynamically split water molecules and capture hydroxyl anions.
       | Such in situ generated local alkalinity facilitates the kinetics
       | of both electrode reactions and avoids chloride attack and
       | precipitate formation on the electrodes.
       | 
       | For all the hype about "untreated seawater", I have to assume
       | they're at least running it through a mesh to get the larger
       | contaminants out.
       | 
       | [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01195-x
        
       | ajb wrote:
       | Where are we going to use this hydrogen, that it would be cheaper
       | than just using electricity directly?
       | 
       | Lots of people in the UK use methane gas for heating. This is
       | cheaper than heating with electricity (using standard electric
       | heaters).
       | 
       | There is talk of replacing the boilers with ones that can run off
       | hydrogen. But even if the hydrogen is generated at 100%
       | efficiency, surely it can be no cheaper than using the
       | electricity directly, and since it won't be 100% efficient, it
       | must be more expensive. And that's without taking into account
       | the gain from using heat pumps, as opposed to directly creating
       | heat.
       | 
       | The other main use of gas is to create electricity!
       | 
       | So where will this hydrogen be used?
        
         | arghnoname wrote:
         | Your line of reasoning is the one I always take on these sorts
         | of things. If it takes X input energy to make energy saving Y,
         | if Y is not significantly more efficient than X, it's probably
         | a net loss.
         | 
         | A lot of green stuff ends up being much less cheap/green if one
         | looks at the total cost and environmental impact of the thing
         | over its lifetime (including efficiency loss over time, mineral
         | extraction, labor, electrical source, etc).
         | 
         | Energy has always been an expense people want to minimize.
         | There's not a ton of low hanging fruit here.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | ben_w wrote:
         | Between about 2000 and 2010 I kept seeing people say "well
         | actually hydrogen isn't a power source it's a just a storage
         | mechanism", since about 2010 I keep seeing people say "oh we
         | can't possibly get to 100% renewables, storage isn't a solved
         | problem".
         | 
         | And back in the 80s and 90s, the US was regularly making 3.5
         | GWh hydrogen tanks fly hypersonic while attached to strong
         | enough pumps that it could've powered an entire medium-sized
         | European country for the 500 seconds it took to empty the tank,
         | and they didn't bother to make them reusable.
         | 
         | So yeah, I recon it will be used for heating and power. Not
         | 100% sure because it has competition from batteries, pumped
         | hydro, and a global power grid, but it's certainly viable and
         | the competition will take time.
        
           | LegitShady wrote:
           | hydrogen is a power source, but green hydrogen isn't a power
           | source.
        
           | arghnoname wrote:
           | Despite the many challenges, I like hydrogen as part of the
           | solution to this stuff. It's easy to produce with commonly
           | available inputs. If we had efficient central energy
           | generation, it's a way of making that energy transportable.
           | When burned (or used in a fuel cell) at the point of use, it
           | burns clean.
           | 
           | I suspect the fears about its volatility are manageable. All
           | concentrated forms of energy are dangerous. The issues with
           | containing it and improving its density, I'm not sure. I'm
           | glad we're not just 100% going with batteries. With all of
           | these technologies there's a lot of ??? between here and
           | panacea.
           | 
           | I just wish this attitude I see that this is an easy problem
           | and we're going to invent our way out of the energy situation
           | in a few years are a bit glib. The benefits of traditional
           | energy forms are immense. The externalities can no longer be
           | ignored, but we have an immense challenge to get even near
           | parity in a general way. I think we'd do better to more
           | soberly assess the situation.
           | 
           | Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you, but there's a lot of
           | untold story in how we get to the "it will be used for
           | heating and power" bit.
        
       | tarotuser wrote:
       | There is no such thing as "Green hydrogen", other than the facade
       | of oil companies that created that term to allay climate change
       | fears. And we even have a term for this - Greenwashing.
       | 
       | https://theecologist.org/2020/dec/18/hydrogen-hoax
        
         | refuse wrote:
         | I'd say overall that hydrogen is an attractive proposition
         | because once you have the infra for it, you can substitute
         | whatever color of hydrogen you want. The trick will be making
         | sure we can easily replace gray hydrogen in the future for
         | green.
        
         | thinkcontext wrote:
         | Millions of tons of hydrogen will be necessary for fertilizer
         | production and other industrial processes for the foreseeable
         | future. If this hydrogen is produced using electricity from no
         | carbon sources, what would your objections be? What do oil
         | companies have to do with hydrogen not derived from any of
         | their products?
        
           | LarryMullins wrote:
           | Both things are true. Green hydrogen is necessary for green
           | fertilizer production, but green hydrogen for energy
           | production is still a scam.
        
             | skedaddle wrote:
             | There's no way to ship solar or hydro energy. And for
             | shipping everything else -- how would you power a boat from
             | India to the US? Or a plane? Hydrogen remains the only
             | green (ish) game in town for these needs.
        
         | vore wrote:
         | The article contradicts your point but justifies itself by just
         | handwaving over it:
         | 
         | > So called green hydrogen has its own problems. Yes, it is
         | technically possible to use renewably-produced electricity to
         | electrolyse water, to make hydrogen - but you need a huge
         | amount of electricity to produce a small amount of hydrogen.
         | 
         | If we can improve the efficiency of electrolysis production of
         | hydrogen, then I don't see how it's greenwashing if it's
         | possible to produce hydrogen without carbon.
        
       | CharlesW wrote:
       | Submission from yesterday (86 comments as I type this):
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34635111
        
       | refuse wrote:
       | Maybe one day we'll generate hydrogen with floating renewables in
       | the ocean and just fill up a tanker to bring it to shore. It
       | would make hydrogen a very attractive option for energy storage
       | and transportation.
        
         | phkahler wrote:
         | Hydrogen is a terribly dangerous thing to keep around for fuel.
         | I've been in garages where fuel cell vehicles were being
         | developed alongside EVs. They had hydrogen detectors and
         | alarms. In case of leaks, evacuate. It has a very wide range of
         | concentration where it will not just burn but explode. You
         | don't want this in your neighbors garage.
        
           | beambot wrote:
           | Lesser-known, but there are solid-state hydrogen storage
           | options that compare favorably to liquid storage
           | (energetically, volumetrically, and inherently temperature &
           | time stable). Best example is storing hydrogen in an aluminum
           | matrix -- Aluminum Hydride, aka Alane. Companies like FuelX
           | are commercializing.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_hydride
           | 
           | https://fuelx.tech/
        
           | MisterBastahrd wrote:
           | What if we had a process to stabilize it? Say, mix it with
           | carbon somehow....
        
           | refuse wrote:
           | It'd be great in a renewables-based grid for energy storage
           | and transport. It could be carefully controlled and monitored
           | because of the partial centralization. I'm not sure it'll
           | ever make much sense for vehicles unless you could increase
           | the density so it's stored as a slush without needing a high-
           | pressure or an ultra low-temp holding tank.
        
             | bobthepanda wrote:
             | Right now, for planes and ships, it's either hydrogen or
             | syngas, because batteries are too heavy.
        
               | [deleted]
        
             | dahfizz wrote:
             | You can't just put hydrogen in a tank like you can with
             | i.e. propane. It's a real pain to deal with, and I don't
             | think grid scale hydrogen will ever work out.
             | 
             | It would make more sense to use the hydrogen to synthesize
             | methane, and then use that for grid scale storage and
             | generation. This would be carbon neutral.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-04 23:01 UTC)