Japan Earmarks $107 Billion for Developing Hydrogen Energy To Cut Emissions, Stabilize Supplies (apnews.com) 63
Japan's government on Tuesday adopted a revision to the country's plans to use more hydrogen as fuel as part of the effort to reduce carbon emissions. From a report: The plan sets an ambitious target to increase the annual supply by six times from the current level to 12 million tons by 2040. It also pledges 15 trillion yen ($107 billion) in funding from both private and public sources to build up hydrogen-related supply chains over the next 15 years.
Japan's decarbonization strategy centers on using so-called clean coal, hydrogen and nuclear energy to bridge its transition to renewable energy. Russia's war on Ukraine has deepened concerns over energy security and complicated that effort, but other advanced Western nations are pushing for faster adoption of renewable energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal. So far, Japan is relying on hydrogen mainly produced using fossil fuels.
Japan's decarbonization strategy centers on using so-called clean coal, hydrogen and nuclear energy to bridge its transition to renewable energy. Russia's war on Ukraine has deepened concerns over energy security and complicated that effort, but other advanced Western nations are pushing for faster adoption of renewable energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal. So far, Japan is relying on hydrogen mainly produced using fossil fuels.
What gap? (Score:1)
If they put $107B toward renewable energy, there wouldn't be a gap to bridge.
The technology exists now. Start building it instead of wasting time and resources trying to develop new tech to solve an already solved problem.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why they'd need hydrogen for when the sun isn't shining or wind isn't blowing. For this money they could've restarted the existing nuclear plants and built a bunch of new ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a shit energy store though. Japan is a mountainous country, so hollow out a mountain and build pumped hydro storage... it would be a better and probably cheaper solution. Japan already has decades of experience building pumped hydro storage, too.
Again, we have the technology.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
It is shit but Japan (and Germany) seem to be obsessed with it. Japan is even still pushing hydrogen as a fuel for cars instead of just going BEV.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember a lot tech/concepts that work in the US don't work other places because the cost to adopt is higher or it geog
Re: (Score:2)
So again, their investment has a LOT of applications.
Re: (Score:3)
Once we (as a species) figure out what to do with our wastes besides just "kicking dirt over it" like a dog with their turds (my dog doesn't do Radioactive poops but I know what he'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Did something in the story give the impression this is for research instead of buildout?
Yes; The part where they mention developing technologies:
"The revised plan prioritizes nine strategic areas, including development of water electrolysis equipment, fuel storage batteries and large-size tankers for transporting hydrogen."
In other words this stuff doesn't exist in the necessary forms yet.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
So investing in a proven tech that needs refinement to bring operating/distribution/storage costs down and in-line with "typical" domestic consumption makes sense when you look at the big picture. (waiti
Re: (Score:2)
This is because Japanese car manufacturers invested a huge amount in hybrid systems, but the world is moving to EVs.
They have whole supply chains making parts for hybrid cars, that are at risk of becoming obsolete.
Hydrogen is a lifeline for some of that tech, and a new market for Japanese companies. They are hoping that some things will still need the energy density of hydrogen, like aviation and maybe some kinds of haulage.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean the conversion back to electricity needs to be done onboard passenger cars. Yes they've persisted in that effort far longer than anybody else. But hydrogen-powered power plants for charging battery EV's will also work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They should be good for a long time to come....
There will be gasoline ICE powered cars in heavy use well into the next 5 decades.
EV's won't be a majority owned or on the road any time soon.
We couldn't support them with grid or infrastructure even if we wanted to any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries are ending sales if fossil cars by 2030-2035.
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries are ending sales if fossil cars by 2030-2035.
The EU just added an exception for e-fuels.
https://www.euronews.com/my-eu... [euronews.com]
Since there will continue to be millions of ICE powered vehicles on the road long past 2035, it makes sense to have options both for all those cars and for people for whom BEVs are undesirable for whatever reason.
I love my electric car but I didn't realize my life would revolve around charging it [www.cbc.ca].
Japan currently sells lots of hybrids. They will continue to sell many millions for as long as they are legally allowed.
In
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see that happening realistically.
And it really ain't gonna happen in the US.
While the goal us laudable....trying to force it on the populace before they're ready could have disastrous side effects.
Unless that's what the powers that be are shooting for.....I don't generally buy into the "they only want the rich to be able to travel", and the "15 min city" thing, but...if this is pushed before everyone is ready, well, that does seem to be
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it will happen in Europe. We are already well on the way.
I don't know what to tell you about 15 minute cities and the like... EVs with big batteries already exist, and charging infrastructure is quite good in many countries now. Nio does battery swaps in Norway too, fully automated they take about 6 minutes and you don't have to get out of the car.
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing in the US....not even close.
While there is interest in EV's here, it doesn't seem to be overwhelming.....lots of ICE vehicles being sold here, and especially on the used market.
Re: (Score:2)
The technology exists. The US needs to modernize.
That said, some YouTubers I've seen who have done long distance travel in the US report that it's actually fine. I can see that it's where Europe was maybe 5 years ago, and hopefully that means you are only 5 years away from it being pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries are ending sales if fossil cars by 2030-2035.
But many won't, especially developing countries simply won't have the infrastructure for mass EV adoption in 7-12 years. Even where the last ICE vehicle will be sold in 2035, there will be many of them still on the roads until 2050 or later too.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but what will the market for Japanese fossil cars be in 10 or 20 years? Certainly not what it is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries are ending sales if fossil cars by 2030-2035.
But many won't, especially developing countries simply won't have the infrastructure for mass EV adoption in 7-12 years. Even where the last ICE vehicle will be sold in 2035, there will be many of them still on the roads until 2050 or later too.
Indeed developing countries are where many of our older cars from the developed world end up. They will drive (and maintain, and most importantly can afford) the stuff that does not sell here.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21... [cnn.com]
Not only will they not have charging infrastructure installed anywhere near as fast as we will, but they won't be able to afford our used EVs any time soon either. Myself, I'm just happy they get to have transportation options that we take for granted here. It is progress even
White elephant (Score:5, Insightful)
Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, and the whole thing is going to be a costly white elephant...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:White elephant (Score:4, Informative)
The electrolysis process use as much power as it's generated, acting more like a battery rather than a power generator, as pointed out by your own link.
But as a "battery" is still very useful, because you can use it to make time dependent power sources like solar and wind more viable, to not mention being able to spread excess power generated by the nuclear reactors across the country etc by having local hydrogen power plants etc..
Re: (Score:2)
It's like a "battery" with almost instant recharge.
It could work for things like aircraft where they want to spend as little time on the ground as possible. Maybe it can work for large ships as well. Both of those would be a huge win for cutting greenhouse gases.
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately it's like a battery with a _far_ lower end to end efficiency than an actual battery.
There are a few use cases that could make sense as you pointed out, but it sure as hell isn't in cars.
Re:White elephant (Score:5, Insightful)
The electrolysis process use as much power as it's generated, acting more like a battery rather than a power generator... But as a "battery" is still very useful, because you can use it to make time dependent power sources like solar and wind more viable, to not mention being able to spread excess power generated by the nuclear reactors ...
Hydrogen is a fuel in the sense that once you have some, you use it to fuel an engine or fuel cell. It's not a fuel in the sense that you find it in the environment with stored energy. Perhaps it's most accurate to say it's a fuel but not a naturally occurring fuel? At least, not naturally occurring here on Earth?
TFA was pretty light on where the electricity for the electrolysis would come from. As are most articles about hydrogen as a fuel.
TFA also mentioned using ammonia as a way to transport hydrogen without mentioning what the plan was for creating ammonia. AFAIK it's mostly made using natural gas as a feed stock, no doubt emitting CO2 as a byproduct. If I remember, the gist is you strip the hydrogen from the methane molecule then bind it with nitrogen. The left over carbon binds with oxygen to make CO2. I suppose it's conceivable to capture the carbon as soot (or graphite or diamonds) but I don't know if that's actually possible.
Making hydrogen and ammonia [Re:White elephant] (Score:2)
...TFA also mentioned using ammonia as a way to transport hydrogen without mentioning what the plan was for creating ammonia. AFAIK it's mostly made using natural gas as a feed stock,...
This is also how hydrogen is currently produced.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a fuel in the sense that you find it in the environment with stored energy
Firstly, there's no definition which requires a fuel to be found in the environment.
Secondly hydrogen most definitely is found in the environment with stored energy, just not here.
Making up definitions doesn't help any point you make.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a fuel in the sense that you find it in the environment with stored energy
Firstly, there's no definition which requires a fuel to be found in the environment. Secondly hydrogen most definitely is found in the environment with stored energy, just not here.
Making up definitions doesn't help any point you make.
I think when your average person hears "fuel", they think something like wood, coal, natural gas, petrol, uranium. The common characteristics are they all contain bound energy and you find them rather than make them. I realize that's not the definition you'll find in Webster's.
I'm also pretty sure I wrote you don't find free hydrogen on Earth. Oh, wait, I checked. Yes I did.
Re: (Score:2)
The electrolysis process is horribly inefficient. It takes around 60 kWh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen, and only 30% of that comes back when I run that hydrogen through a fuel cell.
When I put that 1 kg into a Toyota Mirai, I get 100 km of range.
When I charge a battery EV with 60 kWh, I get 300 km of range.
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps you should learn idiomatic expressions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, and the whole thing is going to be a costly white elephant...
Liquid hydrogen has three times more energy per kg than kerosene. The logistics of hydrogen (storage/delivery) might not work for cars, etc., but it might might work for aircraft.
eg. https://www.airbus.com/en/inno... [airbus.com]
Re: (Score:3)
you generally don't find H2 occuring naturally in nature. it has to be manufactured, hence it's an energy transport medium, and not a fuel
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> you generally don't find H2 occuring naturally in nature.
As opposed to 92 octane gasoline lakes and rivers where we currently source our fuel?
Re: (Score:2)
You should look up sometime when you are outside.
Re: (Score:3)
you generally don't find H2 occuring naturally in nature. it has to be manufactured, hence it's an energy transport medium, and not a fuel
"Energy transport medium" is a three-word phrase that means "fuel".
What you meant to say is, hydrogen is a fuel, but not a primary energy source.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, and the whole thing is going to be a costly white elephant...
Liquid hydrogen has three times more energy per kg than kerosene. The logistics of hydrogen (storage/delivery) might not work for cars, etc., but it might might work for aircraft.
eg. https://www.airbus.com/en/inno... [airbus.com]
What is the volumetric energy density vs kerosene?
It doesn't matter how much it doesn't weight, if the super-insulated tank required to contain it in liquid form dwarfs the rest of the aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the volumetric energy density vs kerosene?
Wikipedia has this handy chart [wikipedia.org].
Liquid hydrogen has around 120 MJ/kg versus 43 for jet fuel. Liquid hydrogen has 8.5 MJ/l to jet fuel's 35. Funny, about 3:1 for both, just in reverse directions.
Personally, I don't know I'm comfortable flying a plane with a cryogenic fuel. Talk about wing icing!
Re: (Score:2)
Liquid hydrogen has around 120 MJ/kg versus 43 for jet fuel. Liquid hydrogen has 8.5 MJ/l to jet fuel's 35. Funny, about 3:1 for both, just in reverse directions.
Weight is more important when you're trying to take off.
Personally, I don't know I'm comfortable flying a plane with a cryogenic fuel. Talk about wing icing!
It's only cold at standard atmospheric pressure.
I assume the trade-off between temperature/pressure is one of the things they'll be researching, along with insulation to keep the wings ice-free.
In the case of a crash I think that being frozen by hydrogen will hurt less than being burnt by kerosene, so... that's a win!
Re: (Score:2)
Liquid hydrogen has around 120 MJ/kg versus 43 for jet fuel. Liquid hydrogen has 8.5 MJ/l to jet fuel's 35. Funny, about 3:1 for both, just in reverse directions.
Weight is more important when you're trying to take off.
A cryogenic cooled and massively insulated tank will not be light weight!
It will also be considerably larger in volume, perhaps triple the volume required for kerosene. Where will that volume go?
Personally, I don't know I'm comfortable flying a plane with a cryogenic fuel. Talk about wing icing!
It's only cold at standard atmospheric pressure.
I assume the trade-off between temperature/pressure is one of the things they'll be researching, along with insulation to keep the wings ice-free.
In the case of a crash I think that being frozen by hydrogen will hurt less than being burnt by kerosene, so... that's a win!
Adding insulation to keep it cool will add weight and volume. And as pressure goes up, so does the mass required to maintain structural integrity.
Not sure being frozen to death by liquid hydrogen would be very pleasant either. But then, if you've already crashed to the point of rupturing fuel tanks, chances are you'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Various car makers have gone with batteries. Toyota has gone with fuel cells.
Re: (Score:1)
> Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, and the whole thing is going to be a costly white elephant...
Yeah man... read up on the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, the main waste component of H2 combustion:
Dihydrogen monoxide:
is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of autom
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be daft. Hydrogen fits every definition of a fuel. You've made this claim before but your premise that for something to be a fuel it needs to be dug out in that form and not manufactured is just silly. You're the only person who uses that definition.
Actually, it is... (Score:1)
Hydrogen is NOT a fuel
How do engines that directly burn hydrogen [hydrogen-central.com] work if it's not a fuel?
Toyota is going this route [topspeed.com] as well (they are really supporting a mix of all kinds of powertrains).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, and the whole thing is going to be a costly white elephant...
Hydrogen is not a fuel in exactly the same way the petroleum is not a fuel.
Embritlement? (Score:2)
Have Japanese scientists solved embritlement and leaking?
That would be fantastic and Japan has some of the best materials scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Have Japanese scientists solved embritlement and leaking?
I assume that's what they'll be researching with this money.
Whoever solves it and gets worldwide patents could earn a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to put it in cars, building a small tank for cheap that lasts forever with no maintenance and is safe in a collision is a hard problem.
This is not much more difficult than LPG tanks. An LPG vehicle doesn't just explode and kill everyone in a collision either. All of these problems were solved decades ago. We've been producing, using and transporting hydrogen for close to a century now. It's not some magical liquid with unknown properties.
Yeah it diffuses through metal. Too slowly to be relevant.
Yeah it causes stress cracking, but at this point the material interactions with hydrogen is well known and understood and simply selecting the app
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly yeah both those things have been solved. But back in reality there's no need to do either. Hydrogen leakage and diffusion is borderline irrelevant. We've been storing the stuff and moving it around for decades. It's not some magical new element we have no experience with.
Likewise for embrittlement. We've been working with hydrogen at elevated pressures, under a variety of stresses and temperatures for over 100 years. It's not some magical unusable medium, it just needs a small modicum of through put
Hydrogen is a Fossil Fuel (Score:2)
The problem with hydrogen is that the only economical ways for generating it are from coal or natural gas. So it's just another fossil fuel where they've already released the carbon. Sure, you can get it by zapping water with electricity, but then the economics are crazy compared with using the electricity directly (even with losses with charging batteries).
Yes, it might make sense for aircraft and ships, and if that's what they're really going for, then OK. But that's rarely where people are going when
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with hydrogen is that the only economical ways for generating it are from coal or natural gas.
Not really. Electrolysis is starting to become very cheap. If you're capable of batching then you're actually able to produce it in a way that utility companies will PAY YOU to make it, (electricity prices were negative today ... again). Even at volume it's possible. Several refineries already have electrolysers as the primary production method with their old nat gas SMRs setup as load followers. At least one oil company I know of is planning to retrofit this at every one of their plants which has its own h
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. However, as more storage is added to the grid, negative electricity prices will likely go away. And I haven't heard of negative spot prices for electricity outside of Texas, where an interconnection with other grids would also eliminate them.
In any case, if we go with hydrogen as the main fuel of the future, we're keeping the door open for fossil fuels.
Tax payer funded bail out of Toyota... (Score:1)