Non trovato

1Anno

@Staatsmann I'll talk about diesel and gasoline in the next post regarding the oil and gas giants. Energetically, it really makes less sense, but that's not the starting point of oil refining these days anyway. Even if many think that.

•

1Anno

@Staatsmann The model chosen for the presentation certainly underlines the arguments mentioned in point 10. However, it provides much basis for discussion. 70%-90% efficiency ??? Other sources give 65%-70%. It is assumed that the electricity for the BEV is produced from 100% sun&wind... is that so ? The electricity mix in Germany says something else... and then the funny discussion can start.

••

Staatsmann@Staatsmann

1Anno

@KleinviehmachtMist
Even if you look at the current electricity mix, combustion vehicles are physically behind BEVs, if you consider efficiency and environmental damage, especially since most people are only concerned about the exhaust gases from the actual combustion, but ignore the vast amounts of energy and environmental damage, if any, to produce gasoline/diesel in the first place.

••

1Anno

@Staatsmann Correct. In this model, however, the production chain for hydrogen is considered and completely calculated to be green. Whereas with electricity, insane assumptions are made and the consideration actually only begins with the full battery, which is then run down under ideal conditions. This is similar to the presentation that the energy transition costs households no more than a scoop of ice cream.

••

1Anno

Great. Now I have to unfollow someone.

•

Utente eliminato

1Anno

Il commento è stato cancellato

NiMe@NiMe

1Anno

@DonkeyInvestor funny rule

•

1Anno

@oliverplass nee

••

1Anno

@NiMe yes, that's just my tick. Maximum and ideally exactly 42 people follow

••

Utente eliminato

1Anno

Il commento è stato cancellato

Visualizza un'altra risposta

1Anno

@oliverplass so still have a little space

••

Enyana@Enyana

1Anno

It is also much easier to build nationwide charging stations than complex hydrogen filling stations. The filling stations cost millions each, which is why there are only a few in Germany so far. Only a very limited number of cars can be filled each day, and even though H2 enthusiasts like to talk up the waiting time, the hydrogen has to be recompressed after a refueling process, which is why the waiting time can be up to 45 minutes. If a truck or a bus has filled up beforehand, the waiting time is probably even longer.

•

1Anno

@Enyana You are yet to become my getquin crush here with your heartwarming comments.

•

Enyana@Enyana

1Anno

@Hannes_SK yes i see, we are fully on the same wavelength 😄

•

Rosi@RealRose

1Anno

@ccf the last picture is top and should the people who still believe in the hydrogen car finally open their eyes 😉

•

1Anno

Hydrogen does not only have to be used in fuel cells, it can also be burned directly in gasoline engines. Or you can convert it into ammonia and use it in diesel engines. In principle, this is the safer alternative. Of course, e-cars also work - but they also need the infrastructure, and no one wants to invest in that, and since we here in Germany unfortunately only promote without demanding, nothing will develop sustainably.

•

1Anno

@KleinviehmachtMist Yes, that's all true, too. I'm certainly not a fan of many of the developments going on in Germany, but combustion like this is even more inefficient than the fuel cell. However, almost all car manufacturers have given up on the further development of the combustion engine. I think Deere once had the ambition to develop an ammonia diesel. And yes, the latter is a point that can be observed in probably all industries at the moment. Subsidies up the wazoo but no oriented goal. Ultimately, however, we live in Germany and the EU and have to make the best of the circumstances.

•

Cupra@Cupra

1Anno

@KleinviehmachtMist So you want to go even more inefficient ways? The fuel cell is already the best thing you can do with hydrogen, except for nuclear fusion.

••

1Anno

@Cupra The magic word is not efficiency but affordability. But what am I talking about if fuel cells and nuclear fusion are in the same sentence, then in this world of superlatives there is enough money for everything.

••

1Anno

@KleinviehmachtMist Even if it was not directed at me, but ... That is exactly my criticism, which I would like to express with the two contributions. The stock exchange or the investors are foaming at the mouth with dreaming about hydrogen, but nobody sees the reality anymore. Therefore my critical points, why the stock exchange hydrogen acts completely utopian.

••

Cupra@Cupra

1Anno

@KleinviehmachtMist Why the world of superlatives? I think both are cheese, but things that are even more inefficient are even more so. Hydrogen might still work as a storage medium.

••

1Anno

@Cupra because fusion power plants will probably not be available until 2070 at the earliest. The non plus ultra at the moment would actually be nuclear power plants if you take into account all the nuclear waste, they are also a dead end - but the reprocessing of the fuel rods produces weapons-grade plutonium, which probably excuses everything. By the way, there was once the idea to use them as an energy source for the car - for me it ranks somewhere just below the level of fuel cells. It is always disturbing that all ideas are not thought through to the end - electric car free of CO2 emission - the future ! Where does the electricity come from ? From the socket ! Who should pay for it ? The sun shines for free and the wind blows for free ! Finished. Of course no one buys it but we can subsidize it and with the solar and the wind we also get it thanks to subsidies. The development will always go as far as it must so that one remains in the profit zone. Hydrogen still has potential, but actually it is already exhausted if it were not for the steel industry and the automotive industry, which still see a chance to keep their hydrogen-based systems alive. The resulting economies of scale help with development. Let's be honest, the most effective variant would be bicycles, where we can even save all the development and follow-up costs. Just like the progress that would be politically efficient again see North Korea. But let's stay with electricity and the brownouts and the blackouts and the controllability of natural disasters yes electricity is of course the way out of all our problems. Fukushima happened, by the way, because ultimately there was no electricity for the cooling pumps. You can think about that even further but the topic is much too complex to explain the point of view.

••

Cupra@Cupra

1Anno

@KleinviehmachtMist I fully agree with you about nuclear energy, and it's a shame that no further research was done there. In mobility, there will be no getting around a phase of diversity for the time being, but for me, hydrogen is out of the question in individual transportation. Together with the disadvantages for small vehicles, there is already too much invested elsewhere. Even Toyota is slowly realizing this.

••

Jonas@Hisager

1Anno

Your core statement is that hydrogen is overrated. However, many -not all- of your points seem to focus purely on hydrogen benefits in Europe, while the companies are active worldwide. How would you classify that?

•

1Anno

@Hisager First of all: I think the question is really nice. I'm mainly interested in the shares of "green" hydrogen producers, because today's hydrogen industry is already established and earning good money with it. So that's where the pace is set for the future, and that's exactly the problem. All these projects, which are being planned, realized or partly in operation worldwide, do not yet have any significance. So how can they be valued at the stock market with nonsensical billions if there is no substance behind them? The entire forecasts of demand are just diagrams that someone once drew up. There are no tangible facts behind them. The only tangible fact behind it is the RepowerEU plan with binding targets. Another such fact would be the financing. Nobody wants to pay for it, but everybody wants it. Neither the EU, nor the U.S., nor China could ever come up with the investment and funding amounts that would be needed, and the aforementioned "established" players will be very reluctant to squeeze their balance sheets in coming high-interest phases and thus scare off investors.

••

Jonas@Hisager

1Anno

@Hannes_SK My three years of semi-academic career have prepared me very well for this question 😉 Okay, so you are primarily concerned with the new players. But what about the established players who can't profit from current/future subsidies, increasing demand (also/especially? for green hydrogen), favorable production conditions in sun/stream/wind-rich regions, so I think that additional business cases are currently emerging for all of them and that when companies have good technologies or competitive pressure starts to emerge, they sometimes pay a bit more for a takeover, especially for energy companies that often have a good cash flow. That would be at least my perception. That is why the newcomers are perhaps somewhat overvalued is quite possible, but Tesla is also holding its own, although I would have expected a lot of optimism there. In general, I currently have the feeling that there is enough money available, but it is more likely to fail due to innovation or the right allocation. Now, however, in the first post you write less precisely about the new players, but about green hydrogen in general. Do I understand you correctly that you would estimate it in such a way that the established companies have no large interest in production (and transport, sales) - infrastructure halt - of green hydrogen? Or how would you see their commitment in this area? (Question because of curiosity and hardly any contact with the industry except for the general market and media events).

••

1Anno

@Hisager I don't believe you.😄 I think that the first post outweighs my views. There I also described the situation with the "shark tank" quite well. The "sharks" snatch the small fish and their progress as soon as the market values are in the basement. Further correct and important: The price. No one, neither commercial nor private, will be willing to pay higher prices. Therefore, "green" hydrogen must be further commercialized. However, I don't see these signs at all on the H2 market. And now comes a point to give green hydrogen credit for: So far, it's all only on a pilot scale in Europe and unsuitable for large-scale industry. Even the pilot projects in Germany are failing because of the high prices. See WunH2, Bavaria's showcase project. The next question would then be: What is cheap, what is expensive? What margins can be expected here? And that's exactly the point regarding geopolitics: Do you honestly believe that African emerging markets would not rather use such future technologies to dramatically increase their own economic power instead of becoming some kind of neocolony again? My personal assessment is mainly about the fact that the stock market is giving far too much weight to the facts here at the present time. One can speculate about such values when the time and the market is right. But it is like the dotcom bubble. Everything is still in its infancy, the dreams burst and investors have to wait another 30+ years before a positive return can be expected.

••

Smudo@Smudeo

1Anno

@Hannes_SK I have to read through the conversion of a plant to $LIN hydrogen instead of $GAZP gas.

••

Pezi@Pezi

1Anno

Unfortunately, I don't have much time to read the entire article. Point 8: Safety: Hydrogen does not explode when it comes into contact with oxygen. You still need an ignition source.

••

1Anno

@Pezi Any form of friction is a potential source of ignition. Friction is everywhere, whether it is mechanical through air friction or electrical charge equalization through air particles. 0.019 mJ is sufficient here, according to the Linde safety data sheet. One tenth of propane. I also assume that anyone who looks at this knows the ignition triangle.

•

Pezi@Pezi

1Anno

@Hannes_SK You expect everyone in a "share forum" to know the ignition triangle? Not even every employee at Linde knows it

••

Mahmoud A.@Mahmoud2Alhariri

1Anno

@Pezi According to the article, yes. The rest scrolls over it anyway. Someone who never deals critically with direct investments doesn't care about anything anyway. Questioned only when the fat minus is there. And the employees who are generally unaware of the dangers in the chemical industry or talk them down have no place in the industry, in my opinion. Safety always comes first and everyone wants to arrive home safely after work.

••

1Anno

Good day have finally kurmich question can you delete the win 😂

••

GAE@GAE

1Anno

One thing I don't understand, especially not from Germany. Electricity must be distributed and depends on the infrastructure - hydrogen less so, since it can be generated directly at the location of the energy source and thus has a clear and distinct advantage over the "e-car". Above all, with the E-car the peak load is raised significantly, which increases the risk of a BlackOut immensely. Therefore, the E-drive is simply the easier solution, but you overlook the numerous weaknesses, especially the biggest ... the infratructure, which everyone here simply takes for granted.

••

Jonas@Hisager

1Anno

@GAE E-cars will become part of the infrastructure due to the storage capacity (of course, only if it becomes a bit more intelligent.) And everyone can produce electricity on the roof of their house and feed it directly into the e-car in the garage without making any major demands on the grid. At the same time, we will not be able to avoid simply reducing individual traffic. Car-free city centers, more long-distance buses, Deutsche Bahn (oh yes, I know...).

••

Joris@Joris

1Anno

Moin, what do you think of the company $GTLS US16115Q3083 Find them very interesting. Are active in LNG, hydrogen, carbon capture and much more. Is not so in the hype as other companies. P/E ratio is high with over 200, but should go down to 30 in 2023. Is a nice combo where they are active. Hold much of your opinion in the industry :) thanks in advance.

••

1Anno

@Joris Where did you pick them up? I know them very well, yes 😅 But explaining the business model and the market behind it properly is beyond the scope of this article. But you will never get a recommendation for an investment from me. No matter which company. 😅 I can consider making a separate post about it and explain the business model times something. Alternatively, you can contact me via Discord for other questions.

••

Joris@Joris

1Anno

@Hannes_SK I like to do research and also like to have a few "unknown" companies that have not been chased through the village in the portfolio :) I googled LNG shares, wanted to learn more about Chevron and then came across Chart Industries. What they do everything, felt on every future market active. Sepziell I came through the below linked post on it and then could not stop reading more about the company. Think a first installment I will dare :) https://www.onvista.de/news/2022/09-15-analyse-wasserstoff-oder-fluessiggas-aktie-wie-waere-es-mit-viel-gutem-aus-beiden-welten-19-26040621

••

1Anno

@Joris Okay, then a separate contribution. I don't give a damn about such analyses by stock market experts, because they sell even the biggest crap as groundbreaking, see the shareholder with Nel ... If it then backfires, it is simply pushed under the carpet, because then suddenly everyone is responsible for their own investment. 🤔 But operationally, this is also a different house number and a different segment. https://www.gasworld.com/story/chart-industries-signs-hydrogen-liquefaction-deal-with-genh2/2121616.article/

••

Joris@Joris

1Anno

@Hannes_SK Good contribution. Yes find chart also very interesting. I love to discover companies that no one has on the screen. Looking forward to the post.

••

Linderw0rld@Linderw0rld

1Anno

That is all correct, in my opinion, the best point of hydrogen currently lies in the transport possibilities. the power grids are overloaded and take a very long time to further expand, if everyone had an electric car, the charging of all cars would be a mega challenge. hydrogen may be fed into the gas grid up to a certain amount. or then also be filtered out again. thus, the power grid can be relieved.
High-voltage lines also have high losses, hydrogen could be transported very far through existing lines. even newer gas plants in houses can burn hydrogen to a certain degree. so for the stabilization of the grid as well as for the camouflage transport of energy, I see a very large and important role for hydrogen. in many places it would be great to expand renewable energies but the power grid can no longer do it. the expansion of the power grid is expensive and takes a very long time.

••

1Anno

@Linderw0rld Technically, this would certainly not be a problem and would be feasible. In the real economy, however, it's not about logical connections, but about maximizing profits within the legal framework set by politicians in the legislature. Furthermore, unfortunately, various guidelines speak against your proposal to make hydrogen usable in urban areas as well. For this purpose, there is DIN EN 16726, which specifies the gas properties in natural gas pipelines. This means that only natural gas, as a mixture, and biomethane are permitted. The condition for this is the condition of the natural gas pipelines, as well as the feeds according to 17928-1, as well as the material condition of the pipelines, which are already quite a few decades old. Yes, that is a lot of paragraph riding, but that is exactly what stock exchange traders do not have in mind and of course cannot do. Nevertheless, the standards are internationally recognized and widely applied in the industry, so that deviations always lead to exorbitant costs in procurement.

•

N@Khlmysee

3Mes

I once let "the AI" plow away at one of your statements - on the subject of safety/risk of explosion:

"The statements about hydrogen and its safety risks do indeed require critical consideration:

## Safety aspects of hydrogen

The description of hydrogen as "probably the most dangerous gas in terms of explosiveness" is exaggerated. Although hydrogen is highly flammable, other gases such as acetylene can be just as dangerous.

**Explosion limits:**
The concentrations mentioned are basically correct. Hydrogen actually has a wide explosion range from about 4% to 75% in air, which requires special precautions.

**Hindenburg comparison:**
The reference to the Hindenburg accident is misleading. Modern evidence suggests that the fire was caused primarily by the highly flammable outer hull, not primarily by the hydrogen.

## Solution approaches and industry aspects

**Nitrogen mixture:**
The proposal to mix hydrogen with nitrogen is a well-known approach to risk reduction. However, this would reduce the energy density and is not practical for all applications.

**Industrial perspective:**
The mention of companies such as Linde, Air Liquide and Air Products in connection with new sales opportunities for nitrogen is speculative. While these companies are active in the industrial gas sector, the direct link to hydrogen security is simplistic.

## Conclusion

Overall, the text contains some valid points on hydrogen security, but tends to exaggerate and simplify. A more balanced, scientifically sound view would be desirable in order to adequately assess the actual risks and opportunities of hydrogen technologies."

I think your assessment is generally good, but also a little too sensationalist and exaggerated.

••