Grumpycat
Veteran Member
I’ve never been swayed by the “it takes too much energy to make hydrogen argument.”
If my solar panel makes hydrogen fuel that’s equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, but I had to collect the solar equivalent of 10 gallons of gas, so what?
Because you could have had the equivalent of 10 gallons of gasoline rather than just 1.
Or, you could have built your solar system for 1/10th the cost.
The cost of solar generated electricity depends on the time value of money. There is very little ongoing maintenance or repair cost.
It’s one thing, if we have to grow 100 acres of corn to get (say) 20 acres worth of ethanol out of it because the refining process consumes the other 80 acres (that 80% going into the environment prior to consumer use). Or if you need 100 barrels of oil to make 50 barrels of fuel, etc..
Ethanol and hydrogen are the same sort of fool's errand. Neither is sustainable. Both require cheap energy from other sources to be anywhere close to economically viable.
But when wind or solar is powering the process, and the ingredients and final exhaust is water, so what? It would seem the efficiency matters less.
"Solar and wind" are only a small part of the ingredients. The hardware to convert solar and wind to useable energy is the greatest consumer of resource. Then amortize this cost over its useful life.
The incremental cost of utility power generation is only about 1.5¢/kWh. Delivered to your home the cost is over 10¢ to pay for the generating facility and distribution grid.
Curious how quickly one forgets, "time to break even", when it is not convenient to one's argument.