Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities:
CleanTechnica is doing shoddy reporting.
They talk about Denmark hitting 140% peak production "last Friday" in an article from 2026-09-09, so presumably that would mean 2026-09-04. Then they link an 11 year old Guardian article from 2015-07-10.
The rest of the article is also barely about Denmark at all, it is just bait.
What does this mean? The 100% all for Denmark and they could now sell the 40% to other countries? That is fantastic! (Have rates come down at all for the citizenry?).
I almost don't care, so long as fossil CEOs starve.
Also, no oil wars.
WOKE NONSENSE! HELP!
This was a peak situation, but long term with even more renewable energy, that's when Hydrogen becomes relevant.
And when we have enough surplus production of electricity to produce cheap hydrogen the sky is the limit. Because cheap hydrogen can replace oil and gas everywhere.
We are not there yet, but I think it's not too far away.
the Danish Energy Agency is spearheading an ambitious plan to produce even more wind power for both export and domestic use.
And we are far from alone in this, all European countries are working towards more renewables. Which is why I think the above will become reality soon. Hydrogen is wasteful and cost a lot of electricity to make, but when electricity becomes plentiful enough that renewable production goes to waste, that's when hydrogen becomes really really relevant, and can replace everything that can't be replaced with electricity and batteries.
doesn't hydrogen have way worse round-trip efficiency than batteries, even before things like embrittlement? i've heard as low as 45%, with the rest just becoming heat.
Yes but how will the oil companies take their unnecessary cut if you use batteries?
why do you think lego is so expensive now
Because it has strong marketing and a cult-like fan base.
Not quite. I mean, partially that is the case, but the good Chinese competition costs on many sets at least 50% of Lego if not more, so the extra margin is there but not astronomically high. Turns out, Lego is one of the most challenging toys to produce (hence it took China so long to catch up in quality, even though they have fully caught up by now), it needs ridiculously high injection molding precision and each product consists of hundreds if not thousand individual parts that need to be correctly sorted.
oil money
Yes, but it can be stored where batteries lose power over time. And a lot of the infrastructure doesn't need to be build but can be converted from natural gas use.
In the end batteries and hydrogen fill two very different gaps. You can use batteries to shift the renewable production peak at noon (thanks solar) to the demand peak in the evening, maybe even flatten fluctuation (in production and demand) over a few days. But they are entirely useless as seasonal long-term storage.
Also plans to produce green hydrogen exist independently. It's a requirement to decarbonise a lot of industry processes where direct use of electricity doesn't work. It's also a raw material in chemical industry.
So if decarbonisation of more than just electricity production is the goal, large scale hydrogen production is a given. As is large scale storage as production from renewable energy will always have seasonal fluctuations. From there having it also double as long-term on-demand stored energy means just scaling up what is already there.
i don't remember if you and i spoke about this before but i did talk to someone on here about the fact that hydrogen can't really be stored for long periods either. whoever it was linked a statement from a german gas company claiming that their existing infrastructure could handle hydrogen without modification, and i remember coming away from that entirely unconvinced.
i'd be happy to be proved wrong but i don't believe green hydrogen is going to play a big part of the grid. i'm personally hoping for pumped hydro and thermal storage.
Sounds indeed like bullshit. More so as here in Germany there are indeed a lot of projects using natural gas infrastructure for the planned hydrogen transport network. But definitely not without modifications.
but i don’t believe green hydrogen is going to play a big part of the grid
Europe seems to disagree, with projects worth more than ten times of those in North America and Asia combined.
Edit:
Here's the already approved part of Germany's planned hydrogen core network (new lines, converted lines, opened by 2025):
And an article about one of the earliest segments of 55km opened 1½ years ago, based on 95% pre-existing lines.
And an article (but only available in German) claiming that the planned capacity for 2025 (converted or newly build) is met with new ~525km out of ~9000km by 2032. Of which ~60% will be converted pipelines, 40% new construction.
huh, i thought only japan was betting on hydrogen. i hadn't heard of expansion here. although that's more likely because everything we get about germany is how it's their fault that our electric bill has gone up.
Fun fact: the other big investor in hydrogen pipeline projects is your neighbour to the east... planned to go all the way through the Baltic Sea to Germany.
Also the French energy concept (see: RTE's (French grid provider) study about energy by 2050) is at its core entirely based on nuclear base load in a renewable/storage system making electrolysis more economical because on top of producing hydrogen with excess renewable power during the day, you then also have a steady production of excess electricity throughout low demand night times.
i still find it strange to build out a technology with such a low efficiency. but with CHP plants it could probably be more economical.
Thing about hydrogen efficiency is that we use the wrong reference.
It's not that hydrogen is that inefficient. Big parts of the losses happen when burning it to produce electricity, exactly as with oil, gas or coal. It only is low efficiency when compared to batteries filled with green electricity from solar, wind an hydro (the only production methods that are not a rather primitve "boil water and run a turbine").
Batteries and electrification in general are just so much better.
But if your requirement is burning gas for process heat in industries where electrification doesn't work and as peaking power plants to meet demand spikes the alternative would be natural gas (or sometimes coal) with also huge losses from production to transport to getting burned for heat.
for peaker plants i've always assumed we'd do fuel cells. just plumbing it in to existing gas infra (aka just fucking boiling water again) seems like it doesn't really solve the problem.
but yeah for applications that require heat rather than electricity it's a good idea. i think having generators on site is probably the more likely solution there.
Before using hydrogen to replace fossil fuels, you need to ensure that no fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity. Otherwise you would increase carbon emissions, not reduce them. I don't see the whole worlds energy consumption going purely green within the next 100 years.
The world is currently at 42.6% green electricity. Also 100years are a very long time.
Share of electricity generation from low-carbon sources
Renewables include solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy, geothermal, wave, and tidal.
It seems like hydropower is doing a lot of lifting across the developing world. Spots like Ethiopia, Paraguay, and Brazil are all heavily dependent on hydroelectricity to power major municipalities and industrial centers.
As climate change impacts the volume and flow of major waterways, I'm a little worried how that ends up.
United States: 43%
That really shocked me. And, I gotta say, these numbers look deeply suspicious. I work in the Houston energy sector, and I can say we're not slowing down development of the Permian Basin. US fossil fuel exports are only going up. Then there's the big investment in data center fossil fuel plants that doesn't seem to be in the forecasts.
That's not to say we're also not building out enormous new solar and wind facilities, even in the belly of the Texas Beast. But the Flint Run plant alone is more than they're reporting. And that's assuming Trump doesn't get his 1.25-gigawatt Terra Energy Center in Alaska.
And, I gotta say, these numbers look deeply suspicious. I work in the Houston energy sector, and I can say we're not slowing down development of the Permian Basin.
I think liquid hydrocarbons are much more likely to be used directly in combustion engines, rather than electricity generation. So even as oil production increases, the percentage of electricity coming from high carbon sources might still be dropping, while the primary energy numbers might go the other way.
So for our electricity mix in 2025, we reached 17.4% nuclear, 10.3% wind, 8.6% solar, 5.4% hydro, 1.0% bioenergy.
But if you look at primary energy mix, fossil fuels are much, much higher percentage: something like 16.8% low carbon (renewable + hydro + nuclear), 35.0% gas, 38.8% oil, 9.3% coal.
But if you look at primary energy mix, fossil fuels are much, much higher percentage
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
They must have a really good electrical grid. I remember 'brown' outs because too much electricity was generated in Vermont.
Denmark is integral part of CESA, a snychronous electrical grid, connecting almost all of Europe, except for the British Isles, the Nordic countries and Mordor to the east. It even includes Ukraine, Turkey and the Maghreb. If electrical infrastructure is not insufficient and/or the operator incompetent then this is no issue at all.
PS: I know that Vermont is, unlike Texas, part of a large synchronous grid as well but I guess either the infrastructure is not up for the job or the operator isn't.
What is the grid operator doing there? That's just incompetence, their only job is keeping the grid stable.
I've never experienced any kind of electrical failure from the grid, having lived in Denmark for 30 years. It just doesn't happen.