Amazon's sustainability push now includes on-site hydrogen production to fuel forklifts

[placeholder]

In context: Amazon's push to go green is continuing with the use of hydrogen fuel. The retail giant will be producing the fuel at its fulfillment centers, as opposed to having it transported to the locations, where it will be used to power the facilities' forklift trucks.

Amazon says it partnered with hydrogen company Plug Power to install the first electrolyzer, a piece of equipment that can split water molecules to produce hydrogen, at a fulfillment center in Aurora, Colorado.

https://www.techspot.com/news/101355-amazon-dives-hydrogen-fuel-powers-forklifts-innovative-site.html

[placeholder]

Along with people who are actually experts in the field, I think that the future of hydrogen as a fuel will be mostly in onsite generation. Not just for electricity, but also for generating heat. Lots of industrial processes require high heat. Already, various storage techniques are being used to store energy as heat, rather than as electricity, to be used for manufacturing. Prices for green hydrogen generation are declining rapidly but still aren't competitive with natural gas. Unlike in the electric storage field where batteries are now outcompeting gas peaker plants. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

I've been saying hydrogen is the way to go for ages.

 

They didn't opt for battery forklifts- must be a reason. They exist as I've used them.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've been saying hydrogen is the way to go for ages.

 

They didn't opt for battery forklifts- must be a reason. They exist as I've used them.

What you've been saying for ages is essentially hydrogen instead of batteries. Not hydrogen as complementary to batteries. Onsite hydrogen manufacture could have an important role to play in the economy but only in a limited way as a  replacement for batteries. As for the forklifts you used, those were lead-acid batteries. 

Edited January 1 by placeholder

[impulse]

The problem (as I see it) with hydrogen is that you're just pushing the problem up or down the supply chain.  It takes energy to split H2O into H2 and O2.  That energy has to come from somewhere.

 

In that respect, it's like charging an EV using electricity produced in a coal (or gas) fired power plant.

 

Contrast that to oil and natural gas that comes out of the ground with the energy built in, over eons, by nature.

 

I'm not saying that EV's and hydrogen don't have a place, and technology and infrastructure isn't developing that make it cleaner and more sustainable.  Just that you have to look at the whole energy chain to figure out whether they're doing right by the planet, or just virtue signaling.

 

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

The problem (as I see it) with hydrogen is that you're just pushing the problem up or down the supply chain.  It takes energy to split H2O into H2 and O2.  That energy has to come from somewhere.

 

In that respect, it's like charging an EV using electricity produced in a coal (or gas) fired power plant.

 

Contrast that to oil and natural gas that comes out of the ground with the energy built in, over eons, by nature.

 

I'm not saying that EV's and hydrogen don't have a place, and technology and infrastructure isn't developing that make it cleaner and more sustainable.  Just that you have to look at the whole energy chain to figure out whether they're doing right by the planet, or just virtue signaling.

 

Yes, it takes energy to create hydrogen. One place that energy can come from is a renewable source like wind or solar. There's an issue in renewable generation called curtailment. Essentially, it means that when a renewable source like wind or solar is producing more electricity than the system needs, its production has to be cut back. Instead of letting that power go to waste, it could be stored as hydrogen. Whether it makes more sense to use hydrogen or batteries for storage is another issue.

Edited January 1 by placeholder

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/1/2024 at 3:12 PM, impulse said:

The problem (as I see it) with hydrogen is that you're just pushing the problem up or down the supply chain.  It takes energy to split H2O into H2 and O2.  That energy has to come from somewhere.

 

In that respect, it's like charging an EV using electricity produced in a coal (or gas) fired power plant.

 

Contrast that to oil and natural gas that comes out of the ground with the energy built in, over eons, by nature.

 

I'm not saying that EV's and hydrogen don't have a place, and technology and infrastructure isn't developing that make it cleaner and more sustainable.  Just that you have to look at the whole energy chain to figure out whether they're doing right by the planet, or just virtue signaling.

 

Nuclear sorts the energy supply to produce hydrogen without adding carbon.

 

It's not like hydrogen isn't an already proven technology. It's been in use for many years.

 

Eventually oil will run out, or become too expensive. Water will never run out and is free from the sky or the sea.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/1/2024 at 2:36 PM, placeholder said:

What you've been saying for ages is essentially hydrogen instead of batteries. Not hydrogen as complementary to batteries. Onsite hydrogen manufacture could have an important role to play in the economy but only in a limited way as a  replacement for batteries. As for the forklifts you used, those were lead-acid batteries. 

Forklifts are one of the few applications that lots of lead acid batteries are eminently suitable for as they require a great deal of weight in their construction. No reason to not use them in forklifts.

NB no need to exploit children in Congo to dig out raw materials and no need for rare earth metals either.

Edited January 2 by thaibeachlovers

[impulse]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nuclear sorts the energy supply to produce hydrogen without adding carbon.

 

It's not like hydrogen isn't an already proven technology. It's been in use for many years.

 

Eventually oil will run out, or become too expensive. Water will never run out and is free from the sky or the sea.

 

The issue with water is that it has no net energy until you add some. That energy has to come from somewhere not intrinsic in the water.

 

For that matter, steam is water power that's been used for hundreds of years.  Just add heat and you can do all kinds of work with steam. 

 

Acknowledging, of course that hydrogen is more storable and portable than steam, for sure.  Simple entropy says you can only store steam for a finite amount of time before the energy dissipates, even with the best insulation.  I suspect you can store hydrogen indefinitely (though the small size of the H2 ion may make leakage inevitable through even the best container, but I don't know).

 

Edit:  I'd add that the technology I'm most interested in related to hydrogen is how to store it in the smallest container.  Simple compression has limits to how many H2 molecules you can store per cubic meter.  (Not that it matters in an Amazon warehouse, but it matters in a Toyota).  Promising developments are coming out in storing it in a chemical matrix where the H2 molecules are stored at a higher density in the interstitial spaces or bound at the molecular level.

Edited January 3 by impulse

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/3/2024 at 1:37 PM, impulse said:

 

The issue with water is that it has no net energy until you add some. That energy has to come from somewhere not intrinsic in the water.

 

For that matter, steam is water power that's been used for hundreds of years.  Just add heat and you can do all kinds of work with steam. 

 

Acknowledging, of course that hydrogen is more storable and portable than steam, for sure.  Simple entropy says you can only store steam for a finite amount of time before the energy dissipates, even with the best insulation.  I suspect you can store hydrogen indefinitely (though the small size of the H2 ion may make leakage inevitable through even the best container, but I don't know).

 

Edit:  I'd add that the technology I'm most interested in related to hydrogen is how to store it in the smallest container.  Simple compression has limits to how many H2 molecules you can store per cubic meter.  (Not that it matters in an Amazon warehouse, but it matters in a Toyota).  Promising developments are coming out in storing it in a chemical matrix where the H2 molecules are stored at a higher density in the interstitial spaces or bound at the molecular level.

The issue with water is that it has no net energy until you add some. That energy has to come from somewhere not intrinsic in the water.

??????

Surely the energy is in the hydrogen atom, not the water. Once water is broken into O2 and H they are not water any more.

 

It's early days on storage. Had as much money been spent on that as on EVs we'd probably have working hydrogen transportation by now. They seem to get by on space craft on H storage ( for fuel cells ), and they do not have a lot of spare space

 

 

This may explain it better, and note the first part about using hydrogen in cars and the bit about storage. Way back in 2003.

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20040010319/downloads/20040010319.pdf

Fuel cell technology has been receiving more attention recently
as a possible alternative to the internal combustion engine for
our automobile. Improvements in fuel cell designs as well as
improvements in lightweight high-pressure gas storage tank
technology make fuel cell technology worth a look to see if fuel
cells can play a more expanded role in space missions.

[impulse]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The issue with water is that it has no net energy until you add some. That energy has to come from somewhere not intrinsic in the water.

??????

Surely the energy is in the hydrogen atom, not the water. Once water is broken into O2 and H they are not water any more.

 

It's early days on storage. Had as much money been spent on that as on EVs we'd probably have working hydrogen transportation by now. They seem to get by on space craft on H storage ( for fuel cells ), and they do not have a lot of spare space

 

 

This may explain it better, and note the first part about using hydrogen in cars and the bit about storage. Way back in 2003.

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20040010319/downloads/20040010319.pdf

Fuel cell technology has been receiving more attention recently
as a possible alternative to the internal combustion engine for
our automobile. Improvements in fuel cell designs as well as
improvements in lightweight high-pressure gas storage tank
technology make fuel cell technology worth a look to see if fuel
cells can play a more expanded role in space missions.

 

 Congrats on having a reasonable discussion.  And thanks.  Sadly, rare here on TVF.

 

Hydrogen (and batteries) are storage mechanisms to store energy produced externally. 

 

To charge a battery, you have to add energy, in the form of electricity. The battery, by itself, just stores the energy.

 

To break water up into H2 and O2 (Its 2xH20 -> 2xH2 + 1x02), you have to add energy.  That's an endothermic reaction.  It requires energy.

 

Contrast that with natural gas (or gasoline), which has intrinsic energy that's released when burned.  That's an exothermic reaction.  It gives off heat.   Which can be converted to work in the cylinders of an ICE. 

 

Huge difference between space flight applications and automobiles is that in space, all you're trying to generate is enough to run the systems.  You're not using the hydrogen for propulsion.  It's the difference between running lights and computers and some life support vs driving a 3000 pound vehicle for 500 miles.  One requires a few pounds of hydrogen and the other requires a lot more.

 

I'm sure we could be a lot further along with hydrogen fuel cell technology.  I'm equally sure there will be technically and economically valid applications for fuel cell technology.  I'm not convinced that automobiles will be one of them.  At least not until they figure out how to safely store more H2 molecules in a smaller volume.

 

BTW, one of the things I'm also interested in is what Amazon plans to do with the 02 component (H20-> H2 + O2).  Will they sell it into the welding (industrial) market or the medical market, find an internal use, or simply vent it?  Knowing what little I do of Amazon, they may pump it into the warehouse offices to keep their employees more alert and productive.

 

Edited January 4 by impulse

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 Congrats on having a reasonable discussion.  And thanks.  Sadly, rare here on TVF.

 

Hydrogen (and batteries) are storage mechanisms to store energy produced externally. 

 

To charge a battery, you have to add energy, in the form of electricity. The battery, by itself, just stores the energy.

 

To break water up into H2 and O2 (Its 2xH20 -> 2xH2 + 1x02), you have to add energy.  That's an endothermic reaction.  It requires energy.

 

Contrast that with natural gas (or gasoline), which has intrinsic energy that's released when burned.  That's an exothermic reaction.  It gives off heat.   Which can be converted to work in the cylinders of an ICE. 

 

Huge difference between space flight applications and automobiles is that in space, all you're trying to generate is enough to run the systems.  You're not using the hydrogen for propulsion.  It's the difference between running lights and computers and some life support vs driving a 3000 pound vehicle for 500 miles.  One requires a few pounds of hydrogen and the other requires a lot more.

 

I'm sure we could be a lot further along with hydrogen fuel cell technology.  I'm equally sure there will be technically and economically valid applications for fuel cell technology.  I'm not convinced that automobiles will be one of them.  At least not until they figure out how to safely store more H2 molecules in a smaller volume.

 

BTW, one of the things I'm also interested in is what Amazon plans to do with the 02 component (H20-> H2 + O2).  Will they sell it into the welding (industrial) market or the medical market, find an internal use, or simply vent it?  Knowing what little I do of Amazon, they may pump it into the warehouse offices to keep their employees more alert and productive.

 

Implicit in your assumptions is that efficiency as a concept in physics is the same efficiency as a concept in economics. Just because a process  requires adding the energy that's going to be drawn on letter, that doesn't mean that it's economically inefficient and uncompetitive. It's how much it costs to create that energy. Economists reckon that at a cost of about $2 oer kilo, hydrogen would be competitive against natural gas. At least as far as onsite usage goes. The cost of creating hydrogen is dropping fast but it's not there yet.  And onsite demand would be huge. Lots of industrial processes require high heat.

As for batteries, the same reckoning of costs applies. Already, solar and wind are driving coal powered plants out of business. Gas-powered peaker plants, which charge high rates and are only fired up when baseline power supply is inadequate, are now regularly being outcompeted by batteries. And new kinds of batteries , such as those that rely on iron oxide (rust), are now in the beginning stages of commercial production and can offer energy at a much cheaper price than gas peaker plants can.

[impulse]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Implicit in your assumptions is that efficiency as a concept in physics is the same efficiency as a concept in economics. Just because a process  requires adding the energy that's going to be drawn on letter, that doesn't mean that it's economically inefficient and uncompetitive. It's how much it costs to create that energy. Economists reckon that at a cost of about $2 oer kilo, hydrogen would be competitive against natural gas. At least as far as onsite usage goes. The cost of creating hydrogen is dropping fast but it's not there yet.  And onsite demand would be huge. Lots of industrial processes require high heat.

As for batteries, the same reckoning of costs applies. Already, solar and wind are driving coal powered plants out of business. Gas-powered peaker plants, which charge high rates and are only fired up when baseline power supply is inadequate, are now regularly being outcompeted by batteries. And new kinds of batteries , such as those that rely on iron oxide (rust), are now in the beginning stages of commercial production and can offer energy at a much cheaper price than gas peaker plants can.

 

All good info. 

 

Getting into EV's, fuel cells and green energy in general, what worries me is them passing laws dictating policies based on forecasts that there will be more wind, and more solar, and how much more.  And how much it will cost.

 

I read stuff like this, and I wonder how that will impact that future... 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/01/us/orsted-wind-energy-canceled-climate/index.html

 

If they mandated EV's expecting these projects to be online in 10(?) years, will there be a shortage of charging capacity when those EVs come online and the wind farms don't?  Or if they shut down wind farms during eagle migration season when a different group of greenies protests all the eagles killed, or when yet another group protests the waste when solar panels reach the end of life and need to be disposed of?  Or too many whales are dying...

 

All surmountable challenges, to be sure.  And tying it back to hydrogen fuel cells, the energy has to come from somewhere.  I just hope they don't mandate our way into a crisis based on forecasts that don't come true in the real world.

 

Edited January 5 by impulse

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

 Congrats on having a reasonable discussion.  And thanks.  Sadly, rare here on TVF.

 

Hydrogen (and batteries) are storage mechanisms to store energy produced externally. 

 

To charge a battery, you have to add energy, in the form of electricity. The battery, by itself, just stores the energy.

 

To break water up into H2 and O2 (Its 2xH20 -> 2xH2 + 1x02), you have to add energy.  That's an endothermic reaction.  It requires energy.

 

Contrast that with natural gas (or gasoline), which has intrinsic energy that's released when burned.  That's an exothermic reaction.  It gives off heat.   Which can be converted to work in the cylinders of an ICE. 

 

Huge difference between space flight applications and automobiles is that in space, all you're trying to generate is enough to run the systems.  You're not using the hydrogen for propulsion.  It's the difference between running lights and computers and some life support vs driving a 3000 pound vehicle for 500 miles.  One requires a few pounds of hydrogen and the other requires a lot more.

 

I'm sure we could be a lot further along with hydrogen fuel cell technology.  I'm equally sure there will be technically and economically valid applications for fuel cell technology.  I'm not convinced that automobiles will be one of them.  At least not until they figure out how to safely store more H2 molecules in a smaller volume.

 

BTW, one of the things I'm also interested in is what Amazon plans to do with the 02 component (H20-> H2 + O2).  Will they sell it into the welding (industrial) market or the medical market, find an internal use, or simply vent it?  Knowing what little I do of Amazon, they may pump it into the warehouse offices to keep their employees more alert and productive.

 

You are welcome.

 

London transport runs buses on hydrogen. So entirely possible to run all heavy vehicles on it.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/cleaner-buses

Since last year, all new double-deck buses will be hybrid, electric or hydrogen to focus on only buying the greenest, cleanest buses. In central London, all double-deck buses will be hybrid as of 2019

 

I went on a hybrid last time in London, and the diesel ( to charge the batteries ) was starting up far too frequently to be efficient. They might as well just have had a normal diesel, but I suppose it looked good, which is important these days.

 

Knowing what little I do of Amazon, they may pump it into the warehouse offices to keep their employees more alert and productive.

Sorry to burst that bubble, but I've sucked on the O2 at work ( the medical variety ) and it had zero effect on my alertness or productivity. It's also dangerous at high levels as it removes the desire to breath, which is triggered by CO2. No one can survive breathing pure O2.

[impulse]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Knowing what little I do of Amazon, they may pump it into the warehouse offices to keep their employees more alert and productive.

Sorry to burst that bubble, but I've sucked on the O2 at work ( the medical variety ) and it had zero effect on my alertness or productivity. It's also dangerous at high levels as it removes the desire to breath, which is triggered by CO2. No one can survive breathing pure O2.

 

Dang man.  Good to know...  I was actually considering trying it (supplemental oxygen, not 100%).  Scratch one harebrain scheme.

 

 

[placeholder]

On 1/5/2024 at 7:55 AM, impulse said:

 

All good info. 

 

Getting into EV's, fuel cells and green energy in general, what worries me is them passing laws dictating policies based on forecasts that there will be more wind, and more solar, and how much more.  And how much it will cost.

 

I read stuff like this, and I wonder how that will impact that future... 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/01/us/orsted-wind-energy-canceled-climate/index.html

 

If they mandated EV's expecting these projects to be online in 10(?) years, will there be a shortage of charging capacity when those EVs come online and the wind farms don't?  Or if they shut down wind farms during eagle migration season when a different group of greenies protests all the eagles killed, or when yet another group protests the waste when solar panels reach the end of life and need to be disposed of?  Or too many whales are dying...

 

All surmountable challenges, to be sure.  And tying it back to hydrogen fuel cells, the energy has to come from somewhere.  I just hope they don't mandate our way into a crisis based on forecasts that don't come true in the real world.

 

More right wing cliches. The people threatening to shut down renewables are mostly right wingers who spread all sorts of misinformation.

How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Used “Astroturf” Front Groups to Confuse the Public

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-used-astroturf-front-groups-confuse-public

 

OIL-BACKED GROUP OPPOSES OFFSHORE WIND — FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS
Local think tanks that previously supported offshore drilling have engaged in a wide-ranging campaign to stop the expansion of offshore wind farms.

https://theintercept.com/2021/12/08/oil-industry-wind-farm-prevent/

 

The right-wing groups behind renewable energy misinformation

https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-right-wing-groups-behind-renewable