Dear Waqas Hassan Tanveer ,

The fundamental objects for the life of humans are the sweet water, energy , air and soil.

So, you can not prioritize any one!

Best wishes

From the life cycle assessment point of view, each energy technology need water at one time or another (whether during production or operation). Unfortunately, progress depends on the availability of water and electricity. Therefore, the question should be how to minimize electricity and water consumption?

In my opinion, renewable energy /hydrogen and pure water or water, in general, are very important for increasing the quality of human life.

Dear Waqas Hassan Tanveer

Use of hydrogen looks tempting in first place, but the efficiency of electrolysis is quite poor.

If hydrogen generation of X MW is supposed to run on renewable energy only, installation of 3..4X MW plus large energy storage systems would be needed, so the equipment to change societies to a H2-based energy storage would become super expensive.

H2-electrolysis, renewable energy generation, storage systems and 1000 gas stations to provide truly green hydrogen from renewable energies would pile up to be a mind boggling trillion dollar investment.

Whenever the task to be done can be fulfilled by batteries and electricity, hydrogen is not an economic option.

In case the gas is needed as a resource like in steel- or chemical industry, it should of course be "green" and not based on fossil resources as it is today.

A similar concern should be the resource "water".

As electrolysis can only be done with really clean water, the process demands freshwater resources to be used.

Per kg of hydrogen, 9-10 liters of water are needed.

For each fuel cell vehicle out there, about 5 Liters of water would be taken from the environment. 200 Million liters in Germany alone.

Freshwater to support 2 Million people.

(Basis: Toyota Mirai with 1kg H2/100km --> 9-10 Liters per 100km, 50km/day average use, 40 Million passenger cars in Germany)

Additionally, hydrogen poses a further risk:

Any hydrogen leaking out - and about 10% are expected to do so - will rise in our atmosphere with high speed. Partially even reaching escape velocity, some of it will turn into stellar H2 instantly, the rest in a rather short period of time.

Irrecoverably removed from the planet.

In a future that uses hydrogen as energy storage, it can be estimated that the planet looses a freshwater amount in the size of lake Constance every 4-5 years.

Not a lot you might think and for sure more than compensated by the melting poles?

Lake Constance holds 48km³ of freshwater.

1km³ is 1 billion m³ or 1 trillion liters.

At 100 liter per person and day, 48*10^12 liter is the amount needed by 1.3 billion people per year.

While already today, about 1 billion people suffer from lack of water and the unavailability of freshwater, using it as an energy storage in wealthy nations does seem a bit absurd to me.

Dominika Matuszewska

Yes the water cycle and consumption of electricity in this modern world are a huge debate. We need to shift to the renewable energy YES, but without unbalancing that cycle. This is the whole point of this discussion.

Jorge Morales Pedraza

Thanks Yes, both are important, but what is more important.

Let look at it this way, Why was Earth thought to be the most habitable planet in the solar system!!

Martin Schulz

Thanks for the detailed response. Here are my views.

1. Yes it is expensive, that is why people are searching for materials and methods to bring costs down to affordable means.

2. The infrastructure however is present. Within the existing gas pipelines, one can insert hydrogen as a time unbound resource of energy. One does not need to make new stations.

3. Batteries are good, but not for long distance trips for trucks, ships and air and their stacking up is cumbersome, yet Fuel Cell and electrolysers are easier to stack and gain advantage from the Batteries upon long distances.

4. I am not sure about the release of H2 at super velocity . It poses no greater a risk than LPG. Yet it is still a risk agreed. That is why people are now transporting H2 as liquid or even solid carrier, which lifts these problems.

5. Yes, the water scarcity will become a huge problem. France is the biggest consumer of Nuclear Power and already we are seeing how much water is being used to cool moderators. Also downstream water is hot and effects the marine life.

So question remains, we need to find the right balance and choose for us and our future generations.

Regards

Waqas

Dear Waqas,

It is complicated to choose between renewable energy and water, but water is more important than renewable if we have no choice.

It depends on the context of the question. If you are living in an area where there is no potable clean water the answer is obvious: life must go on and water is the answer. In an area where clean water is abundant renewable energy may be important.

Jorge Morales Pedraza

Thanks for the input.

Ersan Kalafatoglu

Eventually every problem is going to come knock on the door of every nation. We have to think globally. Unfortunately we have not been proactive enough and have been procrastinating the global warming issue and it has hit us now (privileged and non-privileged countries alike) much more faster than expected.

Same is happening with water, if necessary steps are not taken NOW, sooner or later everyone is going to face the same issue.

Regards

Maybe you try this:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6734395189432983552/

Clearly, fresh water and its conservation are more important than H2-dreams.

Martin Schulz

Thanks for the link. Batteries do take the lead from Fuel Cells for short range transportation. However for longer distances and the requirement of a recharging station every 2hrs, makes them not feasible for long distance travels by land, air or water.

Anna Ebers Broughel

Interesting points. Easier said than done like you said.

Also with Nuclear, one must think of the future storage location for dumped reactors, that are still very radioactive.

Plus there is the political side of it.

When Obama wanted to dump all the nuclear waste to South Carolina in 2007, there was a huge opposition from all fronts. Why would a state/country/zone want to take care of a waste (potentially harmful waste btw), when they are not the ones who used the advantages of it in their state/country/zone in the first place.

Dear Waqas Hassan Tanveer ,

maybe you reconsider your highly general statement.

With current electric commercial vehicles, trucks up to 40 tons of weight can do an 800km distance on a single charge.

With the next generation batteries 2000km can be achieved.

Buses, even articulated buses in the 18m-class can do a one-day shift before recharging.

Planes will need another 2 or 3 battery revolutions to be BEVs in future, but ships could be powered by far less polluting things than crude oil and still cheaper ways than fuel cells.

One myth you should also consider busted when arguing pro H2 in transportation:

With the upcoming charging standard and battery technology, charging up to 1500V and 3000A is targeted, leading to 4.5MW of charging power.

In turn, 600kWh in a large commercial vehicle to go the next 600km are refilled in 8 minutes. As trucks are limited to 80km/h in most countries, this is enough to go another day.

There is no way to refill the equivalent amount of H2 in a similar time.

Refilling H2 today works at about 1kg/minute but a FCV-Truck needs about 4-5kg to go the 100km distance. Refilling 30kg will take 30 minutes and may get down to 15 in heavy-duty applications.

However - those 30kg come from an internal high-pressure tank and refilling it to 700bar after draining the H2 into a truck will take 25-30 minutes at least.

So the second truck to refill will need to consider something like 45-60 Minutes.

A time, in which 6 electric trucks can be served.

What I consider most important in all those discussions:

Energy density of H2 is given by physics and no matter the subsidies burnt in this technology - the energy density of H2 will remain the same in a million years.

Energy density in batteries has more than tripled in the last decade, is about to grow by another factor 3 in the next few years and an additional factor 5 within the next decade - and the sky is the limit.

So my thought is: Let's spend the water once to create the technology instead of using it over and over again and drain it from the ecosystem continuously.

Although renewable energy and pure water both are important for us. I think pure water is more important. Nowadays, our precious natural resources (water) polluted day by day worldwide due to industrialization as well as by other activities. We will suffer a lot soon if we not concern about it. That's why, I think pure water is more vital than renewable energy.

Both are important, however, the existence of pure water is above the generation of energy.

Dear Martin Schulz

Thank you for the detailed response.

My aim here is not to have a long debate regarding who wins the race , batteries fuel cells nuclear...whatever.. We might win some arguments here and there but eventually unless batteries and fuel cell researchers work together we will not have sustainable solutions in the near future. Like whatever you have said about the range extension of batteries is a predicted future following Elon Musks reports, but for now fuel cells can act as range extenders for plug in hybrid electrical vehicles, where the cost of extending the range of a , lets say heavy duty truck, is a mere 2.2 kg H2 stack that can give 10KW at 500C.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6058/935.abstract

AND THESE CAN BE USED TODAY. in the existing infrastructure.

Furthermore, my aim here is to enlighten the readers with the consequences of over reliance on a single renewable energy sector. WE have to survive together... Not as Nuclear /Battery/Fuel Cell/ Wind Engineers,,, but as Humans first for our upcoming generations.

Regards

Waqas

Md. Numan Hossain Thanks for input dear

Antonio Franco-Crespo True...

The question implies a false dichotomy, the answer is ‘both and’. Without sustainable energy there will not be enough (controlled) clean water - without clean water people cannot live, so there would be no demand for energy as humans use it.

However there is much merit in the co-design of systems that seek to deliver both when possible. E.g. renewably powered water treatment, or waste heat for desalination.

Dear Robert Holt

Thanks for the input.

I believe what you are referring to, regarding the water especially, is the water cycle. That has remained in balance as long as the rate of population increase per century has remained relatively constant. With the strides made forward in science and vaccinations, thankfully, the average human life expectancy has increased to levels not seen up until the industrial revolution. Since then, the human population and consequently the demand of energy has increased exponentially.

We have to remember here that all these gases that we call green house gases have been present in the earth's atmosphere always. In fact, water vapor is the largest green house gas in our atmosphere and the sole reason for our habitat and temperature levels being ideal for a life on planet Earth.

Its when you start tampering with the balance of mother nature and are over reliant to suck up all its resources, that a shift in balance occurs and we see these natural disasters occurring. My point here is to highlight that, YES WE NEED RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS and government support is very heartening to see finally, but we need to make a conscious choice that we do not do the same mistakes that we did with fossil fuels, i.e. to over-rely on renewable energy resources, especially that require water, and shift the balance of nature to result in an even bigger disaster, that is the shortage of pure habitable water. It is already happening ...

Regards

Waqas

both for sure

Muhammad Abid Saeed

Yes both are important, but what will take lead, both in short and long term goals of this generation?

Well, I don't know much about it. My opinion will be with more green energy you can avoid polluting more environment and freshwater. And also can use this energy for water purification and purify seawater (desalination plants).

Seems like you do know more than much Abid. :)

Yes, the green energy helps to keep the CO2 levels in check thereby not effecting the water cycle.

Yet if you see my post I am talking about some of the renewable technologies which utilise water and if unchecked can drain the balance of this water cycle, thereby leaving to water shortages.

Hence the discussion.

Regards

W

Dear Waqas Hassan Tanveer ,

The fundamental objects for the life of humans are the sweet water, energy , air and soil.

So, you can not prioritize any one!

Best wishes

Abdelhalim abdelnaby Zekry

All of these are intertwined with each other. Hence a logical decision must be made.

Regards

W

Both are important

Both are crucial. First has preference for developed countries, second has for undeveloped countries.

Muhammad Arshad

Valid point. Yet developed countries are realizing that sooner or later the natural disasters caused by human activity will reach their doors. So, the need of the hour is to be pro-active now and make sensible choices to save the planet and prioritize those renewable energy solutions that do not suck up the water resources for future generations.

Regards

W

Agreed

Both are important in terms of being able to live and function in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. On the other hand, the decision on which type of new investment projects should be allocated more expenditure depends on many local, national natural, geological, climatic and economic conditions, etc.

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Both are important!