Bharat Rakshak

Hydrogen with it's single electron is always looking for marriage. It's the smallest atom that can leak through cylinders seals. Needs huge amount of compression to liquify ie energy expenditure.

From the discussion I note that there are no technological breakthroughs that address these fundamental characteristics of H2 as of today.

Costs are dropping because govts are subsidising more and more.

I used to work with Air Liquide as a client. They are in the gases business since over a century. One of their Sr execs told me the above few years ago and laughed, he said physics can't be changed, but for govt subsidies mass usage of H2 is a pipe dream.

Take it FWIW.

Amber G. wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025 07:49 Sorry for the long post .. (ignore if not interested in technical details)..
...
Bottom line: Using nuclear for hydrogen production, IMO, is a viable long-term solution, particularly with HTE or thermochemical methods (not to say there are challenges eg scaling up will require continued technological advancements....

Amber G. ji

I have a lot of attention span as is the case with our generation. I am also very interested in technical details.

So we agree more than disagree. The only difference is that your too optimistic on the timeline where as I am more realistic. My realism comes from the experience our Indian company had in the past - 25 years of software and 12 years of CNG filling stations, Biogas pilot plants and now two industrial scale plants.

Just technical advancements are not enough to make progress. There are externalities like availability of funds, monetary policy of GoI, and delays caused by natural causes. We had cash flow problems during demonetization. Similarly we had delays due to floods and Covid.

I have a few questions which need to be answered, not by you or me, but collectively by the stake holder community and GoI policy makers (sans political correctness).

• What is a realistic timeline for a large number of Nuclear power plants coming online? I am not sure that 2030 is achievable.
  
  What is the accumulation rate of spent fuel and how are is it going to be stored?
  
  How safe are the nuclear power plants? It is a valid concern for the general public. Those who were kids during Bhopal tragedy are now in positions of authority and policy making.
  
  What other better alternatives exist?
  ...

Cyrano wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025 13:26 Hydrogen with it's single electron is always looking for marriage. It's the smallest atom that can leak through cylinders seals. Needs huge amount of compression to liquify ie energy expenditure.
...
Take it FWIW.

That is a big red flag. Biomethane runs into similar problem but it is not all that bad if the Biogas plants and Biogas CNG filling stations are located strategically along our highways which go through rural areas where the plants have to be located.

But India seems to be gung ho on Hydrogen. Minster Gadkari talks it up a lot. He is also very positive about Biogas as well.

No green technology is economically viable unless there are subsidies during the nascent stage we are in. It is better to redeploy those subsidies on technologies that come to fruition in the short term.

Cyrano wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025 13:26 From the discussion I note that there are no technological breakthroughs that address these fundamental characteristics of H2 as of today.

Costs are dropping because govts are subsidising more and more.

I used to work with Air Liquide as a client. They are in the gases business since over a century. One of their Sr execs told me the above few years ago and laughed, he said physics can't be changed, but for govt subsidies mass usage of H2 is a pipe dream.

Take it FWIW.

These superficial/careless "conclusions" - that are not supported by expertise - will lead to delusions down the road and also mislead others.

It was already said that major advances in water electrolyzers have happened. Particularly in electrodes, membranes, and stack designs. The resulting reductions in process costs were also listed. These remarkable cost reductions are real and are the result of top-drawer science and engineering, and not subsidy-related. Physical limits are not the problem, its the materials and process designs that required improvements and can be economical well within physical limits.

Yeah, some of it is subsidized, and so are a lot of other basic things like food, water, environment, etc...and fossil fuels (subsidies running into trillions of $ every year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies). If you want to argue about subsidies, a lot of people think it is better to start subsidizing sustainable energy independence rather than being locked into a trap of subsidizing a depleting, geopolitically volatile, and CO2-generating fossil resource.

More on hydrogen from Air Liquide (of course, they are all fools except for the one smart guy you talked to some years ago)...

https://www.airliquide.com/hydrogen
https://www.airliquide.com/stories/indu ... n-hydrogen
https://www.airliquide.com/stories/hydr ... zers-scale

In India, Modi sarkar is "all in" on green hydrogen: https://mnre.gov.in/en/national-green-hydrogen-mission/

The Indian news is full of industry developments on various aspects of green hydrogen. One big-picture development that particularly caught my eye: https://www.enr.com/articles/60189-indi ... drogen-hub

Modi sarkar is "all in" because they are listening to fools.

Cyrano wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025 13:26 Hydrogen with it's single electron is always looking for marriage. It's the smallest atom that can leak through cylinders seals. Needs huge amount of compression to liquify ie energy expenditure.

From the discussion I note that there are no technological breakthroughs that address these fundamental characteristics of H2 as of today. Costs are dropping because govts are subsidising more and more.

Some random comments:

1. For India, investing in renewable sources and/or green Hydrogen makes eminent sense. Anything that reduces dependence on foreign oil is in the interest of India, given that this dependence has made India's internal and external policies vulnerable to outside influences. India's oil purchases have funded activities inimical to India's security all around- documented here on BRF itself. No surprise if Modi is all in (I had no idea he was all in).

Subsidies in such countries are warranted given that they are spent locally, and to develop local technology and infrastructure. If a large country like India succeeds at it, it will show the rest of world how it done on large scale. And for those who believe in reducing pollution, hydrogen+fuel cell is cleaner for air.

2. Of course, renewable energy via electricity does not need to be converted to Hydrogen for static applications (industry, home power etc.)- they can use electricity directly via power lines. But for mobile applications, the energy supply (electricity) has to move with the plane, train or automobile (or ship). So one needs to store electricity (=energy) in a battery or in Hydrogen (or some other renewable fuel). After a point, battery's energy to weight ratio (power density- gets worse than Hydrogen). So for large/heavy cargo vehicles, ships, etc. Hydrogen is seen as the option preferrable to batteries.

3. To your Air Liquide friend's point, extra energy is required to compress Hydrogen- certainly this is not efficient. So they can store it in batteries. If batteries get better (=betteries) and their power densities increases significantly (and are not expensive), then Hydrogen usage will likely reduce proportionally. Hydrogen is essentially a mode of energy storage, like a battery. If there is substantial nuclear power (e.g. in France, and now maybe in the US), that will provide the significant extra energy (say during night-time when power usage is lower) to compress and store electrical energy as Hydrogen.

Again, hydrogen has many uses.

Electrolyzers can produce hydrogen at 30 bar pressure. For heavy industry, this is more than enough. Companies like Air Liquide, Johnson Matthey, ThyssenKrupp and many others provide hydrogen plants on site, no transportation required.

Electrolyzers also "democratize" heavy industry due to their modularity. Small and medium industries can now access hydrogen on site economically in a way that methane cannot.

As for transportation uses, let innovation drive down hydrogen production costs (as is being done superbly) and let government subsidize the boring (though important) compression/transportation infrastructure.

Modi sarkar is awash in money thanks to the hardworking and empowered "garib" of Bharat, unlike the steak and potatoes farting (biogas) MAGA bhikhari of USA. A vastly better use of money in protecting Bharat and mother Earth (as per Indian ethos) than sinking it on koila-tel-paad.

What is a realistic timeline for a large number of Nuclear power plants coming online? I am not sure that 2030 is achievable.

This has been discussed in nuclear dhaga.
Let me put some summary here:

India's FM Nirmala Sitharaman announced the launch of the Nuclear Energy Mission in her Budget 2025 , allocating ₹20,000 crore for the initiative. The mission aims to promote nuclear energy as a clean and efficient source of power, with a target of achieving 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047

- Five indigenously developed Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are expected to be operational by 2033.
Nuclear Power Capacity: The target is to achieve 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047, not 2027 .

- 10 new reactors, totaling 8 GW, are under construction across various states.
- Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs): 220 MW PHWRs
- Bharat Small Modular Reactors (BSMRs): Advanced nuclear reactors with a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit,
- Planned Expansion: Increase nuclear capacity from 8,GW to 23 GW by 2031-32.
- PFBR achieved critical milestones in 2024.
- NPCIL & NTPC formed the ASHVINI JV to develop nuclear power plants under existing regulatory frameworks.

From Grok 3 beta;
Question: Ambani, Adani, other companies and India govt are investing to replace imported energy. How much billion dollars of energy import can be saved for the next 5 years taking into account only the new capacity additions from the year 2025?

(I am pasting the answer directly below without using quote function for ease of reading. Added space and bolded several sentences for a quick reading.)

Answer

To estimate how much India could save on energy imports over the next five years (2025–2030) by replacing imported energy with new capacity additions from 2025 onward, we need to focus on the plans of major players like Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries, Gautam Adani’s Adani Group, other companies, and the Indian government. The key is to assess new renewable energy capacity additions starting in 2025, their impact on reducing fossil fuel imports (especially coal, oil, and gas), and the resulting cost savings. Since precise 2025–2030 data isn’t fully available, I’ll base this on current trends, announced plans, and reasonable assumptions, while keeping the analysis grounded in known figures and goals.

Step 1: Identify New Capacity Additions from 2025
Adani Group: The Adani Group is aggressively expanding its renewable energy portfolio. Adani Green Energy Limited (AGEL) aims to reach 45 GW (45,000 MW) of renewable capacity by 2030. As of early 2025, AGEL has 10.93 GW operational. It recently commissioned 2 GW at Khavda in 2024 and plans to add 4 GW in FY 2024–25 (ending March 2025) and 5 GW annually thereafter. Assuming 4 GW is added by March 31, 2025, the operational capacity becomes 14.93 GW. From April 2025 to 2030 (five full years), at 5 GW per year, AGEL will add 25 GW of new capacity. This is mostly solar and wind, reducing reliance on imported coal and gas.
Reliance Industries: Mukesh Ambani has pledged 100 GW of renewable energy by 2030, with a $10 billion investment over three years (announced in 2021, so spanning 2022–2025). By 2025, Reliance is likely to have some capacity operational, but the bulk of its ramp-up will occur post-2025. Assuming a linear buildout, Reliance might add 10–15 GW by 2025, leaving 85–90 GW for 2025–2030. Conservatively, let’s estimate 50 GW of new additions from 2025 to 2030 (averaging 10 GW/year), focusing on solar, wind, and green hydrogen to replace oil and gas imports.

Other Companies: Firms like Tata Power, ReNew Power, and NTPC are also scaling up. India’s private sector added about 15 GW of renewables in 2023–24. Assuming a similar pace, other companies could collectively add 15 GW annually from 2025, totaling 75 GW over five years, though some overlap with government targets exists.

Indian Government: India targets 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030, up from 213 GW in December 2024 (per CEA data). Of this, renewables (solar, wind, hydro) account for ~150 GW now. To hit 500 GW, India needs 287 GW more by 2030, or roughly 50 GW annually from 2025–2030 (adjusting for 2024–25 additions). Government-led projects (e.g., SECI tenders) will contribute, but private players like Adani and Reliance dominate new additions. Let’s allocate 50% of this (25 GW/year, or 125 GW total) as government-driven new capacity, with the rest from private firms.

Total New Capacity (2025–2030): Adani (25 GW) + Reliance (50 GW) + Others (75 GW) + Government (125 GW) = 275 GW. However, to avoid double-counting (since government targets include private contributions), let’s align with India’s 287 GW target, assuming 50 GW/year from 2025–2030, totaling 250 GW of new renewable capacity. This is plausible given announced plans and historical trends (India added 18.5 GW in 2023–24).
Step 2: Energy Generation from New Capacity
Renewable sources like solar and wind have varying capacity utilization factors (CUF). Solar in India averages 20–25% CUF, wind 25–35%, and hybrid systems slightly higher. Assuming an average CUF of 25% for simplicity:
Annual generation = 250,000 MW × 0.25 × 8,760 hours/year = 547,500 GWh (547.5 billion kWh or units).
Over five years, this is 2,737.5 billion kWh.

Step 3: Energy Imports to Replace
India imports coal, oil, and gas for power and industrial use. In 2023–24, India imported 176 million tonnes of coal (worth $25 billion at $140/tonne), 232 million tonnes of crude oil ($100 billion), and 20 million tonnes of LNG (~$13 billion), totaling ~$138 billion annually. Power generation relies heavily on coal (70% of electricity), with 55% domestic and 45% imported for coastal plants. Oil and gas imports mostly fuel transport and industry, but green hydrogen (from Reliance/Adani) could displace some.
New renewable capacity will primarily replace imported coal and some gas. One GWh of renewable energy replaces ~0.35 tonnes of imported coal (assuming 2,857 kWh/tonne efficiency). Thus:
547.5 billion kWh/year × 0.35 tonnes/GWh = 191.6 million tonnes of coal displaced annually.
Over five years: 958 million tonnes.

Step 4: Cost Savings
Imported coal costs ~$140/tonne (2023–24 average, adjusted for inflation to 2025). Savings:
Annual savings = 191.6 million tonnes × $140/tonne = $26.8 billion.
Five-year savings = $26.8 billion × 5 = $134 billion.
This assumes coal prices remain stable (unlikely—prices could drop with reduced demand or rise with global trends). Gas and oil displacement (via green hydrogen) is harder to quantify without specific production data, but could add $5–10 billion/year as Reliance’s hydrogen plans mature, potentially pushing total savings to $150–160 billion over five years.

Final Estimate
Focusing solely on new capacity additions from 2025 and their impact on imported coal, India could save approximately $134 billion over five years (2025–2030). Including early green hydrogen impacts, savings might reach $150 billion, though this is speculative without firm hydrogen output figures. This aligns with India’s import bill (~$138 billion/year), where coal is a significant but not sole component, and renewables directly offset a portion of it.

Answer: Based on new capacity additions from 2025, India could save around $134 billion to $150 billion on energy imports over the next five years, primarily by reducing imported coal reliance, with potential upside from hydrogen replacing oil/gas as projects scale.

^^
I tried with Grok 3 (beta) again with a 1 year change in the question. Instead of from 2025 , I used 2024.

Question.
Ambani, Adani, other companies and India govt are investing to replace imported energy. How much billion dollars of energy import can be saved for the 5 years taking into account only the new capacity additions from the year 2024?

Answer.

Other Companies
Firms like ReNew Power (2 GW solar by 2025), Tata Power, and others are expanding under the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, targeting 10 GW of solar manufacturing capacity. Assuming 5–10 GW of new capacity from 2024–2029, we’ll use 7.5 GW as a midpoint.

Grok gives a very different result, Total power produced by 'Other companies' are 7.5 GW only! But in my previous post for the period of 2025-2030 the total power produced by 'Other companies' are 75 GW !!

Also all total capacity added at the end of 2030 is 250 GW, but that total is only 100 GW at the end of 2028.

Ramp-Up: Capacity won’t be fully online in 2024; assume linear growth:
2024: 20 GW → 43.8 TWh
2025: 40 GW → 87.6 TWh
2026: 60 GW → 131.4 TWh
2027: 80 GW → 175.2 TWh
2028: 100 GW → 219 TWh
Total over 5 years: ~657 TWh.

KL Dubey wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 05:37

Cyrano wrote: ↑06 Mar 2025 13:26 From the discussion I note that there are no technological breakthroughs that address these fundamental characteristics of H2 as of today.

Costs are dropping because govts are subsidising more and more.

I used to work with Air Liquide as a client. They are in the gases business since over a century. One of their Sr execs told me the above few years ago and laughed, he said physics can't be changed, but for govt subsidies mass usage of H2 is a pipe dream.

Take it FWIW.

These superficial/careless "conclusions" - that are not supported by expertise - will lead to delusions down the road and also mislead others.

It was already said that major advances in water electrolyzers have happened. Particularly in electrodes, membranes, and stack designs. The resulting reductions in process costs were also listed. These remarkable cost reductions are real and are the result of top-drawer science and engineering, and not subsidy-related. Physical limits are not the problem, its the materials and process designs that required improvements and can be economical well within physical limits.

<snip>

Thanks for point it out in articulate way. Indeed "

These superficial/careless "conclusions" - that are not supported by expertise - will lead to delusions down the road and also mislead others.

need to be called out.

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 06:14 Modi sarkar is "all in" because they are listening to fools.

Of course! But then what do one expects from Chappalon Ki Sarkar ????

May be Modi should listen to geniuses who could get "escape velocity of Jupiter" right!

Hriday wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 12:53 From Grok 3 beta;

<snip>

Thanks for posting it.. will read it more thoroughly .. it

I am curious, let some of my responses (or others too) here (or in other dhaga's) run through Grok 3.. see what/how it evaluates what we have written (and how it matches with actual data etc) ..... if you have time, share some of it. Thx.

Don't get carried away by brochuritis on green hydrogen or other intermittent types of energy. No matter how much one twists it India will remain wedded to fossil fuels (min 75% to 80%) for at least a couple of decades more.

CO2 emissions should be the least of our concerns as we try to grab the window to become a middle income economy with modern infrastructure.

Amber G. wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 21:40

KL Dubey wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 05:37

These superficial/careless "conclusions" - that are not supported by expertise - will lead to delusions down the road and also mislead others.

It was already said that major advances in water electrolyzers have happened. Particularly in electrodes, membranes, and stack designs. The resulting reductions in process costs were also listed. These remarkable cost reductions are real and are the result of top-drawer science and engineering, and not subsidy-related. Physical limits are not the problem, its the materials and process designs that required improvements and can be economical well within physical limits.

<snip>

Thanks for point it out in articulate way. Indeed "

These superficial/careless "conclusions" - that are not supported by expertise - will lead to delusions down the road and also mislead others.

need to be called out.

Proof of the pudding? I see lots of claims but little evidence. Mixing up industrial and transport usage. Good intentions don't automatically lead to good science.

Cyrano wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 00:18 Don't get carried away by brochuritis on green hydrogen or other intermittent types of energy. No matter how much one twists it India will remain wedded to fossil fuels (min 75% to 80%) for at least a couple of decades more.

CO2 emissions should be the least of our concerns as we try to grab the window to become a middle income economy with modern infrastructure.

All these are irrelevant or non-sequitur statements. A lot of smart people and organizations have looked at these problems deeply and created pathways/roadmaps to success. A few dead-ends may occur, but there will be many successes.

To enable a decisive phase-out of fossil energy 30 years down the road, the renewables ecosystem must be created at the present time. This is going to happen.

Blind faith in science! What happened to critical inquiry?!

In the USA, just because Trump said "drill baby drill" and withdrew from Paris agreement doesn't mean a lot. States, cities, local govts, and corporations will still continue to double down on clean energy and climate goals. This happened in Trump #1 as well.

https://www.americaisallin.com/america- ... withdrawal
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... n-climate/

USA indeed has shown its commitment to these goals despite a host of challenges.

A very balanced update: https://www.wri.org/insights/clean-ener ... ted-states

Amber G. wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 22:04

Hriday wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 12:53 From Grok 3 beta;

<snip>

Thanks for posting it.. will read it more thoroughly .. it

I am curious, let some of my responses (or others too) here (or in other dhaga's) run through Grok 3.. see what/how it evaluates what we have written (and how it matches with actual data etc) ..... if you have time, share some of it. Thx.

Amber ji, I tried your suggestion. When I first posted the link of the post in Grok, it replied that it cannot access data properly. Then I copy pasted an entire post by you to check accuracy. It approved your post with some minor clarifications . Link below.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/3to9arvr1IfRFBuhJkpbotTOU

Cyrano wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 02:35 Blind faith in science! What happened to critical inquiry?!

The old "many smart people looked at it deeply" comes to the rescue. They are neither smart nor did they look deeply. I know from experience.

Both @Amber G. ji and @KL Dubey ji should tell us how may plants they have built or it is all "funde gol" kind of childish mockery freshman IIT people, especially IITK folks (in my experience) engage in.

Do they have any skin in the game? Just a few months back a company doing Hydrogen infra EPC company had an IPO in India. They have built/building plants in UAE, Saudi, India. It is an Indo-SoKO JV. My friend for 55+ years was one of the sponsors who had pretty good amount of seat equity in the company having worked there from inception till IPO (~15 years). That is "skin in the game".

Do these folks have that kind of skin in the game? Please let me know and I will make introductions to people who are looking for CEOs and investors. They are willing to give good amount of options etc.

I just did a search on DDG like so:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=green+hydroge ... ntp&ia=web

-------------
First hit

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... projected/

Green hydrogen far pricier than projected

Contact
David Trilling
[email protected]
https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/
October 8, 2024
2 min read
Prices for hydrogen produced with clean energy will remain high, Harvard researchers demonstrate in the journal Joule, but the fuel may remain the only way to decarbonize some sectors.

Green hydrogen is often touted as the solution for our toughest decarbonization problems: heavy industry, transportation, energy storage. The price will fall as production increases, goes the thinking, and this carbon-free fuel — made by splitting water molecules using renewable energy — will displace fossil fuels.

But a study published in Joule on Oct. 8 by Harvard University researchers shows that most estimates overlook the significant storage and distribution costs needed to deliver green hydrogen to different sectors — or how these costs vary across end-uses.

With straightforward calculations, the authors show that at current and projected delivered costs, green hydrogen is a prohibitively expensive strategy to reduce emissions, often exceeding the costs of directly removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

“Even if production costs decrease in line with predictions, storage and distribution costs will prevent hydrogen being cost-competitive in many sectors,” said lead author Roxana Shafiee, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard University Center for the Environment. “Our results challenge a growing idea that hydrogen will be the ‘Swiss army knife of decarbonization’ and suggest that the opportunities for hydrogen may be narrower than previously thought.”

Determining the carbon-abatement costs (USD per ton of CO2 abated) of using green hydrogen across different sectors of the U.S. economy, the authors demonstrate the need for continued investment in other decarbonization strategies at earlier stages of development, as well as innovation in hydrogen storage and distribution technologies.

“This does not mean that hydrogen won’t play a role in a low-carbon energy future,” said co-author Daniel Schrag, Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard. “There are logistical and economic challenges with every possible solution — including biofuels and electrification. But at this early stage of decarbonization, it is important that we invest in a broad range of strategies, and not bet our future on a single approach that remains very, very expensive.”

Link to the article in the journal Joule is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.09.003. It is behind Elsievere paywall but academicians may be able to access it through their institution's login.
-------------------------------------

https://www.eenews.net/articles/green-h ... -canceled/

Energywire
‘Green’ hydrogen ‘on life support’ as major projects canceled
By Christa Marshall | 02/26/2025 06:22 AM EST

A major hydrogen producer announced Monday that it was nixing two U.S. projects to produce the fuel from renewable energy.

Energy giant Air Products is canceling a $500 million “green” hydrogen project in New York, dealing a blow to an industry that was the center of former President Joe Biden’s climate strategy.

The company has now exited all of its major U.S. green hydrogen projects, according to a recent earnings presentation.

Air Products had intended to build a facility in Massena, New York, to produce green hydrogen using hydroelectricity. The company not only canceled that project Monday but also exited from a second green hydrogen project intended to feed North America’s largest sustainable aviation fuel facility in California.
...

----------------------------
https://www.globalhydrogenreview.com/news/

This has a lot of positive news reports but the average size of new projects as well as moneys raised is small.
------------------
[utl]https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/product ... -1-1787945[/url]

ANALYSIS | Will any more gigawatt-scale green hydrogen projects be built before 2030?
Industry insiders expect that nearly all of the large-scale projects built this decade will have hundreds, rather than thousands, of megawatts of electrolyser capacity

Polly Martin
Senior Reporter
Published 6 March 2025, 02:33
When the giant 2.2GW Neom green hydrogen and ammonia complex in Saudi Arabia reached a final investment decision (FID) in 2023, with a scheduled start date of 2026, it sparked a wave of optimism that the many other announced gigawatt-scale projects would also be able to soon secure financing.

After all, millions of tonnes of green hydrogen are needed in the coming years, and a 1GW project would only produce about 100,000 tonnes of H2 a year.
However, since the Neom FID, not a single project of more than 1GW of electrolyser capacity due for completion by 2030 is known to have started construction, and speculation is growing that Neom will be the only gigawatt-scale project completed this decade.
...

-----------------
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-05/ ... /104434076

Two major green hydrogen projects have hit the skids. Does it still have a future?
By chief business correspondent Ian Verrender
Topic:Business, Economics and Finance
Fri 4 Oct

They're falling like dominoes.

Barely five months after the federal government committed more than $22 billion over 10 years to boost green hydrogen as an alternative fuel, two major projects have hit the skids.

Andrew Forrest's Fortescue Mining pulled the pin on its ambitious plans to produce the clean energy source in July and on Thursday, Origin Energy backed away from an ambitious joint venture with chemicals giant Orica in the NSW Hunter Valley.

The timing couldn't be better for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who has been under fire for refusing to reveal costings on his plan to build seven nuclear reactors across the country.

He has already declared the hydrogen support would be scrapped if he is elected next year.

If anything, the recent turn of events has signalled that after almost a quarter of a century, Australia's energy policy continues to be dominated by politics rather than economics.

Of the seven so-called "hydrogen hubs" that have sprung to life in the past year, the two now in jeopardy arguably were the most significant.

Origin is one of the nation's biggest energy producers and suppliers, while Fortescue's grand plan to turn the north-western corner of the country into a renewable energy superpower garnered the national imagination.

Why Andrew Forrest stepped back on green hydrogen
Photo shows A man in a suit standing in front of a purple screen
Green hydrogen might be more efficient than petrol but it doesn't rate against a battery-driven vehicle.

So, what was the problem? In both cases, the issue was cost.

Origin boss Frank Calabria, while slamming the door on any future involvement in hydrogen, reiterated his belief that hydrogen "could" play a role in the country's future energy needs.

Financially, however, he said the company couldn't make it stack up.

"It has become clear that the hydrogen market is developing more slowly than anticipated, and there remain risks and both input cost and technology advancements to overcome," he said.

Is this the end of H2?
Not yet.

Work is underway on developing green hydrogen projects in the United States, Europe and China and it remains a key component to reducing carbon emissions here.

Even Origin's former partner in the Hunter Valley project, Orica, is sticking with it.

Chief executive Sanjeev Ghandi said while he was disappointed the energy major had walked away from the partnership, Orica would continue to work with federal and state governments to help the company transition to a low-emissions operation at its Kooragang Island facility at Newcastle.

"We remain open to discussions with interested parties who share our vision for a sustainable energy future and Australia's hydrogen economy," he said.

Origin's participation in the Hunter hydrogen hub raised eyebrows from some quarters who questioned why a major LNG producer and exporter would want to develop a technology that ultimately would undermine its own business. The obvious retort was that it wanted to be part of the future.

Why green hydrogen is so expensive
Hydrogen comes in a range of colours; grey, blue and green.

Grey is produced from burning coal or methane, with the fumes going straight into the atmosphere. Blue uses the same method but captures the carbon emissions and then buries them, so it's a little more expensive than grey.

Coal is mostly carbon with variable amounts of other elements, chiefly hydrogen, but also sulphur, oxygen and nitrogen. Methane again is mostly carbon with hydrogen attached.

When you burn either of them, carbon dioxide is produced and pumped into the atmosphere.

Green, on the other hand, is produced from water, using renewable energy from solar, wind or pumped hydro.

The beauty of the process is that splitting hydrogen from oxygen doesn't send off any emissions. And once hydrogen is burnt as a fuel, it turns back into water. Hence the green moniker.

The problem is that splitting hydrogen from oxygen using electrolysis is a costly process.

Depending on who you talk to, it can cost up to six times more than the traditional methods using fossil fuels and coal-fired generators.

And there are wildly differing views on when the costs of green hydrogen will reduce. Some analysts, like those at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, reckon that by the end of this decade, it will be competitive.
...
Like natural gas, it can be liquefied and that prospect raised hopes that it could become a store of energy. That may still come to pass. But it would require a great deal of investment to build a new network of pipes and shipping transport.

When it comes to cars and household energy, batteries appear to be winning the fight. And for export purposes, the tide appears to be shifting away from its use.

In the meantime, it is best suited for producing aluminium, steel and nitrogen fertilisers such as ammonium.

Former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who penned a hydrogen strategy for the Coalition when in government, now concedes the cost of green hydrogen will render it too expensive to use as a store of electricity, something our energy market regulators have been banking on.
...

------------------------------------------------
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/cuttin ... h/8569933/

...
Industry Growth and Market Projections
The hydrogen fueling station market is projected to grow from $268.4 million in 2024 to $2.25 billion by 2034, at an impressive CAGR of 23.7%. Supporting this growth are global decarbonization efforts and increased investments in research and infrastructure by governments and private sectors.

By 2034, USD 2.25 Billion market. The market is small and required investments now are huge. There is a lot of economic risk. Who is going to derisk when the GOTUS and CA itself is drowning in debt?
---------------------------------
https://energynow.com/2024/12/green-hyd ... o-reality/

Green Hydrogen Hype Is Giving Way to Reality
December 27, 2024 EnergyNow Media

Forecasting hydrogen’s costs
By David R Baker

Green hydrogen has been touted by politicians and business leaders alike as a key fuel for a carbon-free future. But it will remain far more expensive than previously thought for decades to come, according to a new estimate from BloombergNEF.

Hydrogen companies worldwide are already struggling with canceled projects and sluggish demand. In the US, billions of dollars of projects have been stalled waiting for President Joe Biden’s administration to issue final rules for a tax credit meant to spur production.

BNEF had in the past forecast steep declines in the price of green hydrogen, which is made by splitting it from water with machines called electrolyzers running on renewable power. But in its forecast published Monday, the firm more than tripled its 2050 cost estimate, citing higher future costs for the electrolyzers themselves. BNEF now forecasts green hydrogen to fall from a current range of $3.74 to $11.70 per kilogram to $1.60 to $5.09 per kilogram in 2050.
For comparison, the most common form of hydrogen used today — stripped from natural gas, with the carbon emissions vented into the atmosphere — costs from $1.11 to $2.35 per kilogram, according to BNEF. The research firm expects prices for such “gray” hydrogen to remain largely the same through mid-century.

“The higher costs for producing green hydrogen without any subsidies or incentives means it will continue to be challenging to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors, such as chemicals and oil refining, with hydrogen produced via electrolysis powered by renewables,” said BNEF analyst Payal Kaur.

Those industries along with steel mills and power plants have been tagged as possible end users of the gas. But doing so would require expensive new equipment, which has stunted demand.

Only two markets — China and India — are likely to see green hydrogen become cost-competitive, according to BNEF. There, the cleaner fuel will reach a comparable price to gray hydrogen by 2040.

----------------------------------
https://energynow.com/2024/12/green-hyd ... ing-costs/

Green Hydrogen Goes From Hyped to Humbled on Eye-Popping Costs
December 23, 2024 EnergyNow Media

A raft of projects to produce green hydrogen, a fuel billed as critical to reaching net zero, have been abandoned this year as expectations for tumbling costs failed to materialize.

Governments and major energy companies have touted the gas as a way to clean up a swath of industries. But the uneconomic cost of production has forced multiple developers to scrap plans, leaving the nascent sector struggling to attract the billions of dollars it needs to meaningfully cut carbon emissions.

“There’s been a reality check in terms of the costs that hydrogen projects entail,” said Gniewomir Flis, an independent hydrogen analyst. “The industry has over-promised and under-delivered. It’s only natural that there is a sort of swing back and a natural cooling of some of the excesses that were promised.”
...

As usual, our Indian babus and their gurus here in BRF who are boosting green Hydrogen are behind the curve as usually the case with our "smart people who looked deeply" at these technologies.

https://www.tickertape.in/blog/best-gre ... -in-india/

Union Budget 2025-26 Allocations Relevant to the Green Hydrogen Sector
The National Green Hydrogen Mission sees its budget doubled to Rs. 600 cr. in Union Budget 2025-26, against Rs. 300 cr. (RE) in 2024-25. Targeting an annual production of 5 million metric tons by 2030, this mission seeks to transform India into a major global producer and exporter of green hydrogen. The National Green Hydrogen Mission is designed to facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy, reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports, and establish India as a leader in green hydrogen technology and market dynamics.

Somebody said GoI is investing to the tune of INR 30,000 cr in Hydrogen. Where is this number coming from? Even if on the average, there is INR 1000 cr till 2030, we are still well under a cumulative total of INR 10,000 cr by 2030.

INR 30,000 cr is not even USD 500 million. That kind of puny investment doesn't advance GH much in India.

Just last sentence (in lot of absurdities among *many* posts...)

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 08:29
<snip>
INR 30,000 cr is not even USD 500 million. That kind of puny investment doesn't advance GH much in India....

INR 30,000 Cr is about 3,450 million USD.

Interesting to note what the poster above chose to respond on. Maths mein bahut strong hain na, shaayad is liye.

Take it FWIW.

Mukesh Ambani is a chemical engineer. IMHO if he said he plans to produce 1 kg hydrogen for 1 dollar by 2030 there could be some solid reasons behind it. May be he was convinced with some technology that is yet to be public.

Here I am giving some extracts from Grok 3 beta search on the topic of advancements in the production of green hydrogen at low cost.

Question 1.

What electrolysis technology is Reliance planning for green hydrogen production?

Answer.
Additionally, Reliance New Energy Limited (RNEL), a subsidiary of RIL, has collaborated with Denmark’s Stiesdal A/S to manufacture "HydroGen Electrolyzers" in India. Stiesdal’s technology is noted for producing hydrogen at a significantly lower cost, which points to an optimized electrolysis system, likely based on alkaline electrolysis, given Stiesdal’s expertise in cost-effective, scalable solutions.

-------------------------------------
Question 2.

Explain H2PRO electrolysis technology and their future plans?

Answer.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/LGXCT6QEBSOlVvhAuwJWMFb8r0

H2Pro is an Israeli company developing an innovative electrolysis technology called E-TAC (Electrochemical-Thermally Activated Chemical) water splitting, aimed at producing green hydrogen efficiently and cost-effectively.

H2Pro’s E-TAC technology takes a different approach by decoupling the hydrogen and oxygen production into two distinct steps, eliminating the need for a membrane and boosting efficiency.

Key Advantages:

High Efficiency: E-TAC achieves an energy efficiency of up to 95-98.7% (based on the higher heating value of hydrogen), compared to ~75% for conventional electrolysis. This is largely because oxygen production avoids electrochemical energy losses.

No Membrane: Eliminating the costly and fragile membrane reduces capital expenditure (CAPEX) and maintenance costs while improving safety by preventing hydrogen-oxygen mixing.

High Pressure Capability: The membrane-free design allows hydrogen production at pressures up to 45 bar (or higher), reducing the need for expensive downstream compression.

Renewable Compatibility: The decoupled process enables flexible operation, syncing well with intermittent renewable energy sources like solar or wind, as it can ramp up or down without risking gas crossover.

Cost-Effective Materials: E-TAC uses affordable, abundant materials (e.g., nickel-based electrodes) instead of rare metals like platinum or iridium, lowering costs further.


Cost Reduction Goals:

H2Pro targets delivering green hydrogen at $1 per kilogram by the end of the 2020s, a dramatic drop from current green hydrogen costs (typically $3-6/kg). This would make it competitive with “grey” hydrogen from fossil fuels ($1-2/kg).

They project this by combining E-TAC’s efficiency with falling renewable energy prices, cutting both operational (OPEX) and equipment costs (CAPEX estimated at half that of traditional electrolyzers).


Strategic Investors:
Backed by heavyweights like Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, ArcelorMittal, Yara, Temasek, and others (raising $107M by 2022), H2Pro has the financial muscle to pursue global markets.

----------------------------------------------------
Question 3.
Is solar power cheaper than fossil fuels without subsidies for both?

Answer.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/61ZfX4lifHVIzM8fSr4wf7Nh9


Recent data from reputable sources like Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (Version 16, 2023) provides a good benchmark. For utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, the unsubsidized LCOE ranges from approximately $24 to $96 per MWh, with a midpoint around $60/MWh. This varies based on factors like location, solar irradiance, and project scale. For fossil fuels, let’s consider coal and natural gas, the two dominant players. Unsubsidized coal-fired power plants have an LCOE of $68 to $166/MWh, averaging around $117/MWh. Natural gas combined-cycle plants, which are more efficient, range from $39 to $101/MWh, with a midpoint near $70/MWh.


So, is solar cheaper? Generally, yes—unsubsidized utility-scale solar often beats coal outright and is increasingly competitive with gas, especially where sunlight’s abundant. In 2025, with no subsidies on either side, solar’s LCOE frequently lands below coal’s and nips at gas’s heels. For a definitive answer, it hinges on location and grid needs, but the economic tide’s turning solar’s way.

------------------------------------------------
I still don't know how the problem of hydrogen transportation will be solved.
For national efforts to replace imported energy, large scale solar plants seems the best bet.

Question 4.
If Reliance were able to produce 1 kg hydrogen for 1 dollar then how will they transport hydrogen to other places in India? Or is it better to invest in large scale solar plant and send power to other states in India?

Answer.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/wqZq4PlWl1Vl3kdkbUiySjmkI

Conclusion:
If Reliance achieves $1 per kg hydrogen production, transporting hydrogen via pipelines is viable for short distances (<500 km) near production hubs, keeping delivered costs below $1.5 per kg. For longer distances, converting hydrogen to ammonia could be cost-effective by 2030, especially for export or coastal transport. However, investing in large-scale solar and grid transmission might edge out in cost-effectiveness ($2–$3 per kg delivered hydrogen) and scalability, leveraging India’s existing grid and low solar costs. The smarter play depends on Reliance’s target markets: hydrogen transport for localized industrial clusters, solar transmission for nationwide decarbonization. Given India’s grid expansion and policy support, solar power transmission could be the safer bet today, with hydrogen transport scaling as infrastructure matures.

Thanks Hriday Ji. Like all intermittent energy matters there is a mix of genuine tech advances (though they don't seem to be at breakthrough level from what I have seen) and green washing in what Reliance or any other company like Air Liquide publishes.

It helps them counter Stop Oil/Xtinction Rebellion type vicious attacks and get a share of Govt R&D funding/ongoing subsidies.

The proof of the pudding is in economic success. Not glossy brochures full of platitudes. US and EU can print money recklessly and green wash like Biden has done. (But perhaps not anymore since Trump has come in) India can't afford to make such mistakes given we are at the cusp of becoming a middle income economy.

We should unabashedly pursue growth which will only come with higher per capita energy consumption, with an energy mix that we can afford, secure and sustain. And not try to look good at some COPxx photo opp while meekly seeking white man's approval.

That's why I am very critical of all this decarbonation and renewable energy hoo haha. It's the most vicious Neo colonial trap of our times designed to keep developing countries developing forever.

SriKumar wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 08:09 Some random comments:

Good post.
Point 1 - mostly agree
Point 2 - needs some reevaluation
Point 3 - we need to separate static usage in industry vs in transportation. No easy answers there.

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

Hriday wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 03:20

Amber G. wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025 22:04
Thanks for posting it.. will read it more thoroughly .. it

I am curious, let some of my responses (or others too) here (or in other dhaga's) run through Grok 3.. see what/how it evaluates what we have written (and how it matches with actual data etc) ..... if you have time, share some of it. Thx.

Amber ji, I tried your suggestion. When I first posted the link of the post in Grok, it replied that it cannot access data properly. Then I copy pasted an entire post by you to check accuracy. It approved your post with some minor clarifications . Link below.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/3to9arvr1IfRFBuhJkpbotTOU

Thanks. I found the result you posted above is pretty impressive. Heard that this AI, comparatively does better in reasoning, mathematics (and science - even graduate level - in general), coding, and world knowledge etc..(heard that it scored impressively high score for AIME 2025 showcasing it's math ability. AIME, by the way is 'American Invitational Mathematics Examination' - where about top 1-2% scorers of AMC are invited, and top scorers are in this exam are invited for US Math Olympics - -a pretty high honor - equivalent to RMO in India for qualification to InMO ).

Again, I am curious, if this AI cracks the type of problems I posted in Math dhaga.. would be interesting to see if it can do as well as brightest high school students).. (Will post in Math dhaga).

I think the most exciting part on the topic of Indian domestic renewable energy replacing the energy imports are the immense benefits in

1.Saving money outflow of 100 billion dollars worth per year which will reduce the pressure points or threats from Arab countries.

2. The GDP multiplier effect that much money will create in India. IIRC Grok 3 beta said around 2 times multiplier effect for investment in domestic energy. For eg, I recently shared a Times of India report of a study which stated that for every 1 one rupee investment in infrastructure it creates 3.2 times worth return in terms of GDP growth. FM or someone from Modi govt also made similar remarks in parliament.

3. May be the most important which I am particularly curious is; how much the central govt will get in terms of taxes, from increased GDP etc. They can use it to boost vital sectors or for popular schemes to increase their chance in 2029 elections.
It is absolutely vital to boost the chance of re-election of Modi govt. First estimate from Grok said 100-150 billion dollars net income for central govt for over 6 year period from 2025. But in second attempt back by 1 year from 2024 to 2029 it is 40 billion dollars only, but still a substantial money. I would like to have some clarity on this. I bet everyone will be excited to know this particular information. If anyone know please provide it here or in a suitable thread.

Cyrano wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 12:00 Interesting to note what the poster above chose to respond on. Maths mein bahut strong hain na, shaayad is liye.

I'm not sure if your response is intended as a form of trolling or simply a display of disrespect. Regardless, I find it impolite, especially considering the effort and expertise another member invested in addressing your questions.

Yes INR 30,000 Cr is about 3,450 million USD.

I appreciate the effort Vayutuvan is putting into sharing valuable information from his perspective. While I may not agree with all of their points, I've tried to provide constructive feedback where I thought i could.

However, I've noticed that in some cases, there are errors in basic math or misunderstandings of the material being presented. There are *many* such cases but let me point out one random example:
In referencing the article "Green Hydrogen Hype Is Giving Way to Reality". a d other articles , he highlight several points that he believe support his argument. Nevertheless, it's worth noting a crucial paragraph that he overlooks.

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 08:13 I just did a search on DDG like so:
...


Why green hydrogen is so expensive

https://energynow.com/2024/12/green-hyd ... o-reality/

Green Hydrogen Hype Is Giving Way to Reality
<snip>
Only two markets — China and India — are likely to see green hydrogen become cost-competitive, according to BNEF. There, the cleaner fuel will reach a comparable price to gray hydrogen by 2040.

Ironically, this paragraph precisely supports the point we've been making all along.

And my dear learned Sir,
You chose to ignore "by 2040" which is a speculative assertion. 15 years from now in today's world is a very long time.

My initial question was on what technological breakthroughs in hydrogen field have happened that make it a sought after source for energy. And all I got was some brochuritis and predictions.

Splitting water or methane to get H2 has been done when my grandmother was in kindergarten. Since then progress has been tough. Every few years some breakthrough is touted but the promise remains a promise. Like the ITER fusion reactor.

Who wouldn't want clean, cheap and unlimited supply of energy? I'm saying H2 as source of that, is not yet there. Will it happen by 2040? May be, your guess is as good as mine.

If the West cracks it first, the proof will be that they will patent and lock down the technology since the competitive advantage will be tremendous.

Will India crack it? I'm not sure. Our paltryly Govt funded research institutes are mostly useless (remember petrol from plastic?). Private sector mostly wants to copy paste thanks to trade barriers and protectionism (in many cases justifiedly) offered by the Govt.

We need to put green agenda and wishful thinking and examine H2 situation as it stands today. And what realistically is possible in what time frame. For various applications. But here we are nit picking on a currency conversion error. So I had to take a friendly dig at you

Amber G. wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 11:44 Just last sentence (in lot of absurdities among *many* posts...)

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 08:29
<snip>
INR 30,000 cr is not even USD 500 million. That kind of puny investment doesn't advance GH much in India....

INR 30,000 Cr is about 3,450 million USD.

It was late and I was getting sleepy. So I took a short cut assuming that you all get the point. It seems you are not exercising your brain. Perhaps you yourself were sleepy, sire?

Let us talk in terms of INR only. I will introduce USD at the appropriate point in the following.

1. The claim was that 30-40K cr in for Hydrogen.
2. What I showed is that 2025-26 allocation is 600 cr. Assuming that the allocation keeps up with inflation and maybe a little more for the next five years, i.e. till 2029-30 budget, the total would be no more that 4K cr.
3. Where is this 30-40K cr coming from? If it for the entire Nuclear+Hydrogen+distribution and storage infra, what percentage is for GH? If not, we have to assume that the allocations are going to increase exponentially, like a "hockystick" all the technology forecasters and stock market speculators like all the sheeple investors to believe.

Let me introduce USD now.

1. In 2024 and and early part of 2025, a few USD 2-3 Billion GH projects got cancelled. They are cutting their losses. The new projects which are starting now in 2025 are investing to the tune of a few million USD maybe tens of millions but there are no billion dollar projects starting as of now.
2. AFAIC, the trend of decreasing investment will not only continue, but accelerate given current US admin is all-in on "drill baby drill" which will dpress O&G prices globally. If Russia and the US reach make a deal on Pakraine, then O&G will be freely available. Throw in some sort of an agreement with Iran on Gaza, Iranian oil will be in the open market as well.
3. Who is going to invest right now in a technology which is gonna yield results in 2040?
4. India investing those INR 4000 cr in GH till 2030 is a hedge against the remote possibility that someone comes with some technological breakthrough in GH area.

Now you know where that USD 500 million coming from. It is INR 4000 cr. in the next five years.

At today's conversion rate INR 4000cr < USD 500 Million

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/informati ... 2025-03-08

How does this locomotive work?

Amber G. wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 15:00 ...
In referencing the article "Green Hydrogen Hype Is Giving Way to Reality". a d other articles , he highlight several points that he believe support his argument. Nevertheless, it's worth noting a crucial paragraph that he overlooks.

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 08:13 I just did a search on DDG like so:
...
<snip>
Only two markets — China and India — are likely to see green hydrogen become cost-competitive, according to BNEF. There, the cleaner fuel will reach a comparable price to gray hydrogen by 2040.

Ironically, this paragraph precisely supports the point we've been making all along.

That was an IED for you and @KL Dubey ji. I suspected he blocked me and now I know for sure that he did block me. I wanted to test to see whether you are reading through the links I posted there in that post of mine.

Both of your argument (or at least the thrust of your arguments) is that GH would be widely used to generate GW of electricity by 2030. What I have shown from open source information that currently 100s MW are generated from GH even in those places who started on this a few years back.

1. On what basis, you are claiming that India (which has no technology as of now for GH) would be able to generate GWs of electricity from GH by 2030?
2. The longer the planning horizon the more the uncertainty in your projections. Yes that article says 2040 which is 15 years out. For get 15 years, you cannot even project to 5 years out because Trump is perturbing the global status quo by hitting it hard with the hope that it will settle into a new equilibrium where the US will come out on top.
3. What incentive India has right now to take on the risk of unproven technology? None.
4. You linked two of Rahul Gandhi's images in an attempt to troll me. But can you say for sure that Rahul/INC is not going to get into power in 2024 or 2029? Can you say for sure that BJP govt. is not going to make economic/political mistakes? If you are not intellectually dishonest (I believe you are not) your answer to both the Qs has to be a resounding no.
5. That is why I asked whether you two have any skin in the game? Do you have any experience and expertise in any part of the energy industry?

If not, what you say in this regard, however many facts and figures you are reading off of some policy paper or other, is not credible.

Cyrano wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 16:47 And my dear learned Sir,
You chose to ignore "by 2040" which is a speculative assertion. 15 years from now in today's world is a very long time.

@Cyrano gaaru, excellent post this one.

I think we are coming from a different vantage point from @Amber G and @KL Dubey gaarlu. They are ivory tower dwellers who are always looking for scientific and technological breakthroughs. Nothing wrong with that but that also makes them naive when it comes down to implementation and execution. I myself never worked at that level in the industry but atleast I learned a lot of commonsense when I was at IIMB (ex-NITIE).

We had a course called Technological Forecasting. It was a lot of fun because it was a lot of bhoosa. I read the entire collection of SF books in our insti's library along with a TF journal that all kinds of speculations. I also learnt many fun words like Leap Frogging, Technology evangelising, stakeholders, customer buy-in, your champion in your customer organization, ityadi.

Cyrano wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025 16:47 Our paltryly Govt funded research institutes are mostly useless (remember petrol from plastic?). Private sector mostly wants to copy paste thanks to trade barriers and protectionism (in many cases justifiedly) offered by the Govt.

Our company - we were angel investors who provided seed funding from after-tax USD - developed a fully working "plastic bags to petrol" fridge sized machine which would operate by itself once it got primed with petrol. Part of the produced petrol gets recycled to operate the machine. We also started a setting up a network of plastic bag collection points in a district HQ in CG to setup to show that it can be scaled up as well. But we had only limited amount of money that we were willing to risk. Biogas pilot plant had better prospects with respect to the aggregation. There were already biomass aggregators in Punjab. So we had to shut down the plastic bag recycling project.

Science and tech for both Biogas and "plastic to petrol" are well known. But aggregation of inputs and distribution of the outputs, end-to-end supply chain, is not well developed.

"plastic to petrol" output is readily useable but input collection faces the last mile problem.
Biogas is the other way around. GH also suffers from the same problem but much worse due to the higher pressure required to liquify H compared to CH4.

Leakages have to be minimal.

Advantage of using Biogas derived from anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste (avoids stubble burning) and food processing (soy trash, potato peel from potato chips plants, press mud and bagasse from sugar plants) is that it is carbon neutral. Municipal waste also can be used if there is appropriate segregation at the collection point, i.e. waste producers segregate waste even before municipal garbage collectors come to collect the waste.

My point which both @Amber G. and @KL Deubey gaarlu are missing is this:

You are arguing that H from Biogas and H from Nuclear/Solar power are mutually exclusive which is 100% pure balderdash.

What we need to focus on is economic viability of these technologies now and going forward. For long term sustainability and hedging purposes, an appropriate mix has to be calculated as more information becomes available. This is a product mix optimization problem under uncertainty and also it is dynamic in the sense that what is optimal today maynot be optimal 5 years down the line and 10 years down the line and so on. It is like portfolio optimization for maximizing one's returns from the stock market. Same methods, same Ito integrals, and so on.

If someone wants to dig deeper into this topic (application of Chance Constrained Programming to renewable energy)

DOI is
https://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780429455094

Analytics and optimization for renewable energy integration
Authors:Ning Zhang (Author), Chongqing Kang (Author), Ershun Du (Author), Yi Wang (Author)
Summary:The scope of this book covers the modeling and forecast of renewable energy and operation and planning of power system with renewable energy integration. The first part presents mathematical theories of stochastic mathematics; the second presents modeling and analytic techniques for renewable energy generation; the third provides solutions on how to handle the uncertainty of renewable energy in power system operation. It includes advanced stochastic unit commitment models to acquire the optimal generation schedule under uncertainty, efficient algorithms to calculate the probabilistic power, and an efficient operation strategy for renewable power plants participating in electricity markets

If folks have appetite for more technical stuff here a link to another paper. This is on seawater electrolysis to produce GH. Which is definitely much better than using freshwater which is in short supply in India. We are just recently finished potable water piping to huge swaths of India. India is a water deficit country as opposed to China, the US, Russia - the three major players we are in competition with.

Better use the renewable energy to for desalination and greening desert hinterland adjacent to coast. That will also take care of growing energy crops (Biomass for Biogas plants) and atmospheric CO2 reduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_ ... ower_plant

A combined cycle hydrogen power plant is a power plant that uses hydrogen in a combined cycle power plant. A green hydrogen combined cycle power plant is only about 40% efficient, after electrolysis and reburning for electricity, and is a viable option for energy storage for longer term compared to battery storage. Natural gas power plants could be converted to hydrogen power plants with minimal renovation or do a combined mix of natural gas and hydrogen.[29][30]

Retrofitting natural gas power plants

Code: Select all

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Natural gas power plants could be designed with a transition to hydrogen in mind by having wider inlet pipes to the burner to increase flow rates because hydrogen is less dense than natural gas, and have the right material because hydrogen can cause hydrogen embrittlement.