Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by closewith 118 days ago
It does, definitively.
1 comments
pfdietz 118 days ago
If it does, then it also rules out long distance transmission of electrical power, as that is even more expensive. And the hydrogen advantage is even greater when one considers one can piggyback storage onto this system, as is done in natural gas pipelines. The electrical system would need additional batteries which are much more expensive per unit of storage capacity.
link
closewith 118 days ago
You are simply wrong on this. HVDC losses total ~5% for 1,000km, including step up and step down losses.

H2 will experience 20-30% over the same distance of natural gas line including compression and friction losses. DOA.

link
pfdietz 118 days ago
I said expensive. Total cost is the relevant metric, not efficiency.

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81662.pdf

It's a common mistake to think efficiency dominates all other metrics. It's never just efficiency.

link
closewith 118 days ago
Capex for H2 pipelines is higher than new HVDC, and opex is 5-10x HVDC per MWh-km so you're just wrong on this.

H2 makes sense for feedstocks but not energy distribution.

link
pfdietz 118 days ago
The reference I gave you completely disagrees with your statement. So, present a link justifying it or I will just go with the link I have.
link
closewith 118 days ago
The PDF you shared actually agrees with my point if you care you to read it. It models the cost for a specific HVDC implementation, but the HVDC line selected is more expensive when transporting just 3% of the energy of the pipeline.

The same capex and opex can support 100x more Wh-km via HVDC, making HVDC at least an order of magnitude cheaper then the H2 pipeline.

What's interesting to me is that this is completely uncontroversial and incontrovertible, so I wonder where your insistence otherwise is?

link