Batteries are often described as resource-intensive. With a 95% proven recycling rate and a 10yr life, over 50% of battery minerals mined today will still be in use in *130 years*. Add 5% performance improvement per cycle, and they will be delivering services *forever*. Boom! 1/2
Now compare that with fossil fuels. Each year we burn 15 billion tons of the stuff, emitting 37 billion tonnes of CO2 and 135m tons of methane. And it's single-use. Burnt. Gone. The stone age did not end for lack of stones, it ended because we figured out mining and refining. 2/2
Let's go all-in. Battery lifetimes will be decades, not 10 years. With a 20-year battery life, 95% recycling and 1 to 2% annual reduction in materials intensity for new batteries, minerals mined today will be delivering *3 to 6x* their initial performance in 100 years. Boom!
3/2
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
European Court of Auditors @EUauditors says "The EU’s industrial policy on renewable hydrogen needs a reality check" because its targets "were not based on a robust analysis". We know the targets came from @H2Europe becuase @JorgoChatzimarkakis said so. Would he care to comment?
For those interested in the detail, here is my @CleaningUpPod conversation with @Chatzimarkakis, in which he explains how Hydrogen Europe's 2x 40 targets were inserted into the EU Hydrogen Strategy. cleaningup.live/ep115-jorgo-ch…
@CleaningUpPod @Chatzimarkakis Here is an extremely watchable (and absolutely withering) look at the EU Hydrogen Strategy by @dwnews, Germany's state-owned overseas broadcaster (equivalent to BBC WorldWide). dw.com/en/the-eus-amb…
It will take until 2030 to reign in the current bout of hydrogen mania, embark on a real plan to eliminate the 2.3% of emissions currently caused by 94 Mt/year of grey & black hydrogen, and target its use on a few otherwise hard-to-decarbonise sectors. We are in the foothills. 1/
Let me be quite clear - we will need clean hydrogen. But fantasies of a hydrogen economy, hydrogen society and globally traded hydrogen market need to be abandoned. There will be a global market in ammonia, but mainly for fertilisers, chemicals, shipping fuel and some storage. 2/
Again, to be clear. The issue is not production cost. Learning curves mean green hydrogen will end up cheaper than grey. But nothing will change the physics and thermodynamics of hydrogen: low density; escapey; explodey; embrittley; NOx-producey if burnt; greenhouse gasey. 3/
Looking for something to read or listen to this weekend? I've been busy, released a whole load of stuff you won't want to miss. So much, in fact, that I've listed it all in a🧵. So pour yourself that cup of 🫖 or a glass of 🍷🍺🍸 and let's get started...
First up, my piece for @TheEconomist. It's a response to Vinod Khosla, who believes we should stop deploying wind and solar because they can't deliver "baseload" (🤣), and in a few decades something better might come along. We need research AND deployment. economist.com/by-invitation/…
Next, there were so many loose ends after my @MLCleaningUp conversation with Jorgo @Chatzimarkakis, CEO of @H2Europe, that I just had to write a piece summarising my key takeaways and debunking some of his wild claims. One for hydrogen realists everywhere! linkedin.com/pulse/jorgo-ch…
What bollox. Which other "heating alternatives" require you to change your oven, hob, gas meter and fireplaces, bring all old pipework up to standard, repair all micro-leaks, add Excess Flow Valves and ventilation, and still leave you buying more expensive fuel and breathing NOx?
If you really want to know what safety measures are required to make hydrogen as safe as gas in your home (though still less safe than eliminating gas altogether), read the report by @Arup on behalf of the government. Particularly section 14 on p101. hy4heat.info/s/conclusions-…
Fuel cost will also be 2-4 times as high. If it's blue hydrogen, you have to start with 47% more 'natural' gas for the same heat - simply chemistry - plus you have the cost of CO2 capture and storage. If it's green hydrogen, you're talking 4-6 times the electricity of heap pumps.
How it started (at least for me: lots of others had already been trying to address the UK heating industry's scandalous mis-selling, mis-installing and mis-maintanance of condensing boilers for years).
A thread for those who think we're going to be importing lots of hydrogen over vast distances.
1. Shipping liquid hydrogen is not going to be a thing. To understand why, you need to understand that hydrogen is basically liquid, -253C escapey, explodey expanded polystyrene.
2. What this means is that any comparison with LNG is, ahem, bollox. We cracked LNG shipping, but it's the most expensive gas on the market. And shipping the same BTUs as liquid hydrogen would require 3-4 times as many ships. Because of physics, not lack of learning, scale, etc.
3. Liquifying hydrogen is also a complete bear. It currently consumes 35% to 45% of the Lower Heating Value of the input. If you don't know about LHV and HHV, or about ortho-para isomer conversion, please read more and tweet less about liquid hydrogen! pubs.rsc.org/en/content/art…