PEM vs. AEL in electrolysis: the iridium problem
The world production of gold is 3,000 to 3,500 tons per year. For platinum, only 180 to 200 t/a. But now comes the over the top hammer: the world production of iridium is only 7 to 8 t/a.
What am I supposed to write on Sunday? 52 newsletters a year is quite a challenge. But then, on Saturday evening, I received an email from the energy spokesperson of an AfD regional group. It was about my topic from last Sunday, emission-free steel production. You need hydrogen for emission-free steel production and you need electrolysis to produce hydrogen.
Until now, I had only been concerned with electrolysis in terms of price and efficiency and suddenly I was faced with an unbelievable abyss of pseudo climate protection. In detail, I was told in the reader's email; quote:
“In his cost calculation, the good man had believed the manufacturer of his electrolysis system that the electrode stacks would last an average of 10 years. But since I can count and the system had been in operation for 1 1/2 years, 6 out of 20 stacks had already been replaced.
These electrolysers are quite expensive and premature failure has a significant impact on costs. An investigation revealed that this fertilizer plant uses PEM electrolysis. Why PEM and not AEL? PEM is only with a few percent more efficiency in a consistent power supply. Otherwise, PEM is characterized by high costs and a short service life.
| Criterion
| Alkaline (AEL)
| PEM
|
| Capital costs (€/kW)
| 800-1,500
| 2.000-3,500
|
| Stack lifetime
| 10-15 years (90,000 hours)
| 5-10 years (40,000-80,000 hours)
|
| Degradation during constant operation
| Very low
| Low (but higher during load changes)
|
| Efficiency (HHV, full load)
| 65-70%
| 65-75%
|
| Part-load efficiency
| Worse below 20-40%
| Good from 5-10%
|
| Dynamics/Ramps
| Slow (minutes)
| Very fast (seconds)
|
| Cold start time
| Minutes to hours
| < 5–10 Minuten
|
| Materials
| Inexpensive (nickel, steel)
| Expensive (iridium, platinum, titanium)
|
Wow, platinum is more expensive than gold. Sure, the world production of gold is 3,000 to 3,500 tons per year, whereas platinum is only 180 to 200 tons per year. But now comes the over-the-top hammer: the world production of iridium is only 7 to 8 tons per year. That's right, you can transport 3 years of global production in a semi-trailer truck. 8 tons is a cube with an edge length of 708 mm. If the entire world production was used only for PEM electrolysis, it could be used to build 11 GW of PEM electrolysers per year.
This is where the abyss of irresponsible stupidity opens up. Electrolysis is needed for steel production, fertilizer production, power-to-methane and power-to-methanol. These are crucial components for the future of our civilization. Relying on a material with a completely inadequate raw material range for this is nothing short of perverse. In a 24×365 electricity system, around 50 W of electrolysis power is required per kW peak of photovoltaics. For the global production of 650 GW expected this year, 32 GW of electrolysis would be many times more than what is possible with PEM.
”Is this technology viable for 10 billion people?” is a chapter in my first book “Ascent to the Solar Age” in 1992.
In 2008, I realized that the production of Chinese electric scooters had a dramatic impact on the price of lead. I first criticized redox flow batteries at a conference in Berlin because of the completely inadequate raw material range of vanadium.
What about lithium? Every year I eagerly followed the reported reserves of raw materials on USGS.gov. I followed the theory of whether Saudi Arabia could become a lithium exporter with cheap solar power and the extraction of lithium from seawater. Then came the redemptive news; sodium batteries and sodium exist like salt in the sea.
Raw material range and usability are a very old topic for me, so it is all the more surprising that the pseudo climate protectors have not recognized this at all. PEM electrolysis systems fall short of the required quantity by more than an order of magnitude due to their dependence on iridium. Let's calculate an example with the highest efficiency of both systems:
|
| AEL
| PEM
|
| System with 1 kW
| 800 €
| 2,000 €
|
| Hours of use
| 100,000
| 60,000
|
| Efficiency
| 70%
| 75%
|
| Electricity costs at 8 cents/kWh
| 8,000 €
| 4,800 €
|
| Hydrogen produced
| 3,626 kg
| 2,030 kg
|
| Cost per kg
| 2.43 €
| 3.35 €
|
The difference in efficiency cannot compensate for the higher system costs and the shorter service life of PEM, even with optimistic assumptions. So where is the motive for the wrong decision to opt for PEM instead of AEL? Not like an architect who receives his fee as a percentage of the construction costs?
|
Reactions to emission-free steel production
|
There are people who deal intensively with a topic. The tip that led to today's newsletter came from one of them. Then there are the dreamers who live in cloud cuckoo land and can't stand any reference to reality.
For example, the head of a green energy association canceled my newsletter in response to “emission-free steel production”. The difference between the gross photovoltaic yield and what remains in Salzburg after the 24×365 conversion was too dramatic for him.
Along the lines of “Hooray, we supply green electricity when the sun is shining and I'm not interested in the rest”.
|
The planetary restoration mentality
|
Planetary cleanup back to 350 ppm CO2 means about 47,000 TWh of electricity to filter 1 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere and recycle it into carbon and oxygen. Who can afford that? Only a rich human race, 10 billion people in prosperity can do it. One million km² of energy-optimized settlement areas alone should contribute 150,000 TWh for the necessary electricity for world-wide prosperity and planetary restoration.
|
GEMINI next Generation AG will prove the contrary
|
It's not about whether the shares will be worth 100 times or 1000 times more in 20 years' time or whether they will only be worth a few cents. It's about the future of us all. Will there be a big showdown between eco-fascism and yesterday's fossils, or will it be possible to overcome the deep divisions in society and inspire supporters of both sides to work towards a great new goal?
Global prosperity and planetary restoration instead of saving, restricting, renouncing and climate catastrophe or peak oil and a little more climate catastrophe. Both sides must be convinced that there is no solution that is even remotely viable.
On the one hand, it must be shown that net-zero emissions are a completely inadequate target and that the goal must instead be a planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. The other side must be shown that solar power enables a higher standard of living than fossil energy.
It's about survival! The social situation in 2025 compared to 2005, extrapolated to 2045, makes for a horror world! If we are successful and your shares are worth 100 times more, this is just an addition to all the other achievements.
One new shareholder said “Me with my very modest investment”, but €400 times €1,000 is also €400,000 for all investments up to the creation of the prototype.
There is a reward program for recommending the share to others. Two of the new shareholders have become shareholders through this reward program.
Here are the details.
|
GEMINI shares: time to buy - milestones
|
The situation has changed fundamentally since this company visited Slovakia. Necessary investment volume reduced by around 90%. Time to marketable product shortened by around one year. The 90% reduction in investment volume also means that each shareholder has significantly more shares.
The share price is now lifted towards our targets at each milestone. These milestones can happen in all areas: Financial, new shareholders, new opportunities to attract new shareholders. Contracts to build the prototype, more houses and settlements. Cooperations for realization. Purchase, arrival and testing of important technical components. |
