zlacker

>>RobinL+(OP)
That 70% energy loss in round trip conversion to hydrogen doesn’t look so bad if the alternative is 100% loss by not running the turbines.

>>jl6+fi
That really depends on the capex of the hydrogen equipment. It has to be extremely low to justify not curtailing.

>>epista+Di
Technically it depends on the levelized cost of hydrogen, which encompasses capex, opex, and a slew of other relevant inputs. Similar "levelized cost" formulas are used throughout the utility sector to make these kinds of decisions; what makes green hydrogen unique is simply that it is undergoing a spike in research and development right now that is drastically changing some of the inputs to the LCOH equation.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46267.pdf

>>kokane+in
This are good models for roughly continual usage of the equipment, but they don't model the use cases of operating capacity factors less than 60% for electrolysis, and it's likely that the capacity factor of electrolysis equipment powered by excess wind would be <10%. At that point, the capex beings to dominate nearly all other factors.

I in fact used to be somewhat optimistic about hydrogen as a long term storage mechanism for our excess renewables, until I saw models like these from NREL. Now I am extremely skeptical of any hydrogen from electrolysis unless it's from something like solar+storage facilities. (Which are actually being proposed now, which is very exciting!)

>>epista+TL
Why is solar+storage different?