tech

Norway races Australia to fulfil Japan's hydrogen society dream

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

Nippon must firstly assure the Aussies that they've got the contract in the bag already.

Then at the very last minute announce an international bidding contest with Norway.

Finally the contract is awarded to the Norwegians.

Simple; just like in the Soryu affair!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Very good news is these policies are being taken seriously.

But is there any reason Japan can't produce it's own hydrogen cleanly? Transportation from Norway will add to the carbon footprint.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Neither are not the final solution but merely a stop gap solution. The final solution is utilizing photosynthesis to convert CO2 and H2O into Hydrogen and organic chemical which will be utilized as the basis for chemical industry circumventing fossil fuel all together to develop a truly sustainable society. The technology has already be developed. Once Hydrogen has become main stream energy source, those plants will go on line which will change the world.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Interesting how hydrogen is called a clean fuel when it isnt. It must be produced and it takes massive amounts of chemicals or other energy to make it, which means hydrogen isn't clean, just maybe less dirty. Even the use of wind or damns requires massive amounts of equipment and material to make it work and the production of the, equipment isn't clean.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It must be produced and it takes massive amounts of chemicals or other energy to make it

Using energy to create it isn't inherently unclean. For example if that energy comes from dams or solar, it's not going to be dirty.

Using chemicals may be dirty. Depends on the chemicals.

The actual hydrogen itself however is clean, insofar as the byproduct of burning hydrogen is water.

Now, it's true that at the moment we don't have the means to create hydrogen in mass volumes using clean energy. But just because it cannot be done now, does not mean we should not be working towards being able to do it in the future. Much better than just plugging our ears and saying 'fossil fuels are ok' and trying to ignore the eventual outcome of such a strategy.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Does anyone know the likely effect of emitting larger amounts of water from vehicles? I'm thinking of a cold winter day in Tokyo with low humidity. Will we see foggier streets as the water vapor condenses?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Those Hydrogen plants better be made Earthquake tolerant.

As for the Cars... the following attempts to dispell the mini-Hindenburg worry...

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2852323/heres-why-hydrogen-fueled-cars-arent-little-hindenburgs.html

Though , I guess we won't really know until there's been a significant number of crashes

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"hydrogen from Australia costs about 29.8 yen/nm3 "

I guess everyone missed this. Surely a misprint, but everyone, even the author, is claiming to be a scientist. Who but a poseur could miss this?

So, let me set everyone straight. Japan is not making " a huge bet" on hydrogen by any means, but Japanese companies are working seriously at it. Yes, hydrogen can be produced from many resources, even renewable, and it might be produced MOST efficiently in Japan someday, but maybe not. It is nice to have Australia and Norway working on ways to solve Japan's problems as they resolve their own. Yes, batteries are technically simpler, but they are a dead end. They might even get cheaper as companies rush to sell them at a loss just to keep market share, but it does not mean they are superior in the long run. For Japan, for many reasons, hydrogen is probably better.

A usual opinion is to regard hydrogen as a "fuel" and then to knock that down as a strawman. Actually, I think of hydrogen in a tank as filling the function of a battery, but with an infinite number of recharging cycles, very rapid "discharge" as it fills the tank of a car, for instance, and a very long duration of storage, which makes hydrogen a much better medium of storage than batteries. People will say, "Well, why don't we use renewable power to charge batteries and then discharge the batteries later?" Well. That gets expensive, especially for huge amounts of electrical charge that grids typically deal with, PLUS you have to have that capacity in place before hand PLUS pushing batteries around in cars is heavy and inefficient PLUS hydrogen does not have a "voltage." You can use it for lots of things, or just get rid of it by making fertilizer with it, or just burning it or letting it into the atmosphere. Whatever.

For many reasons, I think hydrogen is the way forward for Japan. It is not a popular opinion, necessarily, but that is ok with me. Everyone will eventually agree with me. Hydrogen solves a lot of problems that Japan has and is likely to have. Japan ALREADY has huge numbers of batteries in vehicles and on grids, so people in Japan already know that batteries just won't do the job in the long run. This article is describing paths forward for Japan to get its hydrogen cheaply and efficiently, but someday, Japan will have the resources to make its own with no problem.

I guess the article describes SOME work being done on hydrogen supply processes. Norway (hydro) is paired up with Denmark (wind) and France (nuclear) and Germany (solar) to produce power in northern Europe using nuclear and renewable. But those countries are finding that they produce surpluses in many cases. Rather than waste that power, they would love to be able to produce hydrogen with it. It makes sense that Norway is looking for opportunities. Australia has many many other options to solve the problem and sell resources to Japan profitably. I would not be surprised if people were not discussing options around the clock. Australia has huge coal, gas and solar resources that it could use to make cheap hydrogen in huge quantities, and it has LNG facilities to cool the hydrogen or hydrogen precursor.

But other work is underway in Germany, with wind to hydrogen production, and at the US NREL, where wind to hydrogen is also being done. Texas wasted about 17% of its wind energy last year simply because nobody could use it. If all of that were used to produce hydrogen, somebody could have made billions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"But is there any reason Japan can't produce it's own hydrogen cleanly? "

Cost. Japan could do it today if utilities were involved. Unfortunately, they are busy doing other things, really through no fault of their own.

"But just because it cannot be done now, does not mean we should not be working towards being able to do it in the future. "

It is so obvious that it bears repeating. I think that the Mirai and similar vehicles are important to get people to work with this technology and examine its potential. Hydrogen is a battery, an industrial chemical, and portable resource, and a resource that can be generated/transformed anywhere on the planet. IT can be shipped and traded too. It fits MOST of the infrastructure that we already have and replaces the worst/dirtiest parts of it.

If I had a billion dollars, I could change the world with hydrogen. But I don't. Others will have to pony up the money and do the best they can. KHI needs to talk to Tokyo Gas, TEPCO and other utilities.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 batteries are technically simpler, but they are a dead end

@5SpeedRacer5, why are they a dead end? I'd genuinely like to know. My own understanding is that batteries (or the cells of batteries) are chemical constructs. Recharging involves reconstituting chemicals. In some ways, it's not so different from creating hydrogen. Is there some kind of fundamental barrier to creating better batteries?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@albaleo

Batteries has an inherent problem of reduction in amount of charge through damage from cell reversal and damage during storage in fully discharged state resulting to limitation in lifespan which is shorter than other parts within the vehicle meaning it needs to replacing the batteries in midlife of the vehicle which is costly to the individual owners and the need to recycle the batteries which is costly to society as a whole.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It seems strange to create hydrogen through renewable resources halfway across the world and then ship it to Japan. It's not like there are any natural resources required to produce it (other than sun/wind/etc.), unlike with fossil fuels, so Japan should be producing their own hydrogen. I hope that they plan on doing so in the future if there is success using hydrogen here.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"rogen. Is there some kind of fundamental barrier to creating better batteries?"

Yes. And that is not particularly true for grid scale applications, but there are people running around saying that moving bigger and bigger batteries faster and faster on cars is a good thing. It isn't. And people will need to charge for long periods of time, probably during times when consumption of electricity is already peaked. Car batteries that are about Leaf sized are not bad, but when you get up to what Tesla, BMW and Benz are looking at, it is a bad use of resources. Different batteries can be developed with acceptable cost and efficiencies, but still expensive, so even solving the physics is not going to give a rapid scaling up of infrastructure.

And as far as dead ends, the big one to me is that all batteries will go dead. All will need to be replaced in this cycle of 5 years, 10 years, or whatever. We burn oil and it is gone forever. We charge batteries for 5 years and then pay to buy a new one from new materials. Factor in that the battery is not a resource, only a component, and the whole concept loses its luster.

Hydrogen is light. Fuel cells are light. Capacity is unlimited. Location is not constrained. Hydrogen is wide open, and as I said. Batteries are like a new toy at Christmas. A whole lot of fun until you have to buy new batteries now and again. IT really grates with me that "green" people are just paying a bunch of money to buy cars that trade fossil fuel consumption for battery consumption. The problem is not solved for the long run. People who are content to drive more efficiently and limit their consumption are much more to be admired.

Watch what happens to batteries in the next 10 years or so. There will be successes, but they won't be what we think they are. Batteries will get really cheap in the next few years, but companies making them will fail. But hydrogen, through that whole time, will show great leaps forward in terms of production and consumption. That will be particularly true for Japan.

Triring has some good points.

Striker, as I said, the "need" to transport is just economics. Just think it through. If Japan wants to use renewables to produce hydrogen, it must first build the renewable resources, which is not cheap. Then it might have to design and build the infrastructure, which is not cheap. A lot of countries are having CHICKEN AND EGG problems with new technologies and infrastructure. KHI is dealing with Norway and Australia because those countries have already solved problems that Japan might solve someday, but not yet. That is fine. In the real world, you make deals and save money where you can. Or you do absolutely nothing and progress never comes.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I wll try to give albaleo a more careful answer later.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

On the subject of batteries, the two best-known existing hydrogen cars, the Toyota Mirai and the Honda Clarity, both have one. The Mirai's is a similar size to the Camry hybrid's. Batteries help smooth out demand in urban driving, storing unneeded power etc., and obviously store power reclaimed by regen braking. I think it is fair to suggest that bigger batteries are coming to more cars, whether hydrogen, hybrid, or battery powered.

The other point about batteries is that when used as a buffer to increase efficiency, as in the Prius, and not as a fuel tank, as in a Leaf or a Tesla, they don't really lose capacity or need replacing. The hatch Prius came out in 2004? but very few have needed new batteries despite all the naysayers claiming they would. You can usually get a refurb from a wreck cheaply if you are unlucky and actually need to replace one, but the vast majority of people don't.

Toyota and Honda are the world leaders in hybrids, i.e., partially electric cars, and I find it interesting that they made a hydrogen car before making a fully electric one powered on batteries alone. It would be nice for both technologies to have a fair go, but with the infrastructure demands they bring, that may not be possible.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Triring, 5SpeedRacer, thanks for the information. Lots to think about and explore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, this is misinformed

" I think it is fair to suggest that bigger batteries are coming to more cars, whether hydrogen, hybrid, or battery powered."

Actually, they aren't. And that has been a revelation to me. First of all, the hydrogen cars do not use batteries, and there are no plug in hydrogen vehicles either. They are all electric, but they use fuel cells, not batteries. Hybrids use smaller batteries, and they do fail. There are A LOT of people adapting old Prius batteries and Honda batteries etc. for various applications where the batteries are not good for cars, but for lighting and power in remote locations. They are about 5 kWh. And even battery powered EVs are struggling to use smaller batteries, but the market does not want that. Tesla has vehicles that have over 100 kWh batteries, but many at about 85 kWh. I think a Leaf has about 35 kWh. So what Tesla, Benz and BMW are doing is moving larger and larger batteries faster and faster. It is truly absurd. Leaf, Bolt, Volt and others are sticking with smaller batteries and better efficiency at a much more sane price point. They are profitable. Their efforts are market-rational and they will last.

" I find it interesting that they made a hydrogen car before making a fully electric one powered on batteries alone. "

Well, it is interesting because you are wrong. Toyota does not like to talk about it now, but Toyota had its own all electric vehicles from about 2005 or so. Maybe earlier. They even had a joint venture together with Tesla that Toyota pulled out of because they could not sell the vehicles. Toyota was a major Tesla investor early on and in fact Tesla's largest factory was formerly owned by Toyota, who sold it to Tesla for stock.

What you are missing then, is that Toyota KNOWS EVs. Toyota produced EVs and Toyota left that market. I think that speaks volumes. I suspect what Toyota figured out very early is the only way you can produce EVs profitably is to make them efficient (boring). Tesla has gone on to make exciting cars, but it cannot do so profitably, and in the long run, people will be disappointed.

Toyota has also figured out that hybrids offer people the chance to use existing infrastructure and just drive a car normally. That has huge value. A hydrogen infrastructure both resembles and augments a gasoline infrastructure, so maybe that is part of what they are after.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I compiled a huge explanation for albaleo. Really long winded about how hydrogen can replace some of the best aspects of gasoline, electrical grids, and batteries. It is more like a book, though.

It basically comes down to this. There are a lot of ways, like more than 10, of producing H2. All of those, in competition, will drive down costs and increase efficiency. I have no doubt that H2 production costs are just not a long run problem. Zichi mentions above that producing H2 is also a way to reduce waste from overproduction of electricity, which is already a problem in different places, and it will be in Japan someday. Sounds crazy, but it has been a constant problem of utilities for many decades.

On the consumption side, fuel cells are great for giving power to ships, cars, trains, planes, and buildings. Those are generally areas that fossil fuels are used intensively for now. So if we just all of a sudden had 16 times as much solar power and wind power as we have right now, we could use it all to power transportation and smart grid networks and more or less say goodbye to oil imports. Doing that with batteries is really just unthinkable. It would also REQUIRE a new grid, whereas hydrogen would not.

Albaleo's specific question was "is there some kind of fundamental barrier...." and it is the wrong question. Of course I cannot prove that there is NOT a better battery technology. What I can say is that there appears to be no lighter, cheaper, robust battery than what we have now. If costs go down, it will be from production technology or over production, and that is not permanent progress. There are heavy cheap batteries and lighter but very expensive batteries.

The reason it is the wrong question is that batteries can only do so much and can only solve pretty limited problems before we run into problems of cost, weight, limited resources, voltages, heat, safety, etc. Pushing the envelope is not going to give the gains that society can get from hydrogen production, either in the short term or long term. This is going to become clear to people in the next few years. Battery excitement has run its course, but its best days are behind us. Hydrogen is not as sexy, but it is going to dawn on people that it can make a lot of things easier.

Here is one last trick you should try to alter your perspective. People think batteries are great because we live in a world of energy scarcity. Would you still think batteries are great if it were not scarce? Norway literally has more power than it can use, and so does Australia, in its own weird way. (And Iowa, Texas, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Spain, California, Alaska, Saudi Arabia, etc. ) Most countries looking heavily at hydrogen are looking to a time when we are going to have a lot of energy available, but we will have trouble storing and distributing it as we do with fossil fuels now.

It is dawning on people that we can probably have as much energy as we want and probably more than we really need, but what are we going to do with it? Wrap your head around that one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In terms of location, I believe the best place would be where they have a vast patch of open land near a water source and deep port sunny all year long and real estate is dirt cheap.

Basically the ideal place would be the middle east but unlike oil they would not have a monopoly and if prices goes up other places can fill in their place so they have no upper hand in negotiations.

In fact it can be in the middle of the ocean for all it matters but labor cost to maintain the facility would sky rocket in this case since you need to ship them in and out as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Basically the ideal place would be the middle east but unlike oil they "

But that is like saying that the ideal place for oil is Texas, or the ideal place for nuclear is Iowa. What will happen is that people will produce and consume it where the economics work, period. There is no need to analyze it all now. Somebody else will do that. Then someone else will invent a cheaper way of PRODUCING, TRANSPORTING or DISPENSING it, and the whole game will change. So it is not really the point.

If you do want to have fun considering the matter, though, here is a quick list of the top five regions for production: Australia, N. Europe, Texas/Midwest, Mideast/Gulf, Russia??. Top five regions for transport: Qatar, Australia, N. Europe, Louisiana, Indonesia. Top five regions for dispensing/consumption: Japan, California, N. Europe, Korea, NE USA.

I think the lists show that the most likely nexus for now is production in OZ or NEurope and consumption in Japan. But those lists rely on the most likely technologies to be used today. That can change, and there is no reason to expect that consuming countries will not develop their own capacity where they can do so profitably. Japan has traditionally preferred to import resources where it can, and it just might do it this time, but if it uses different processes or produces hydrogen using wasted energy, it might find that the cheapest resource is at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites