I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical. That way, it consumes funding and interest that would otherwise be spent on electrification, without threatening the dominance of fossils.
@WaterWaiver@AllNewTypeFace There’s a perception that we could just reuse existing methane gas (i.e. “natural gas”) infrastructure for hydrogen. But often that just isn’t the case:
"The pipelines that transport hydrogen are made of the same basic material as most of those built for natural gas: steel. But hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane, the main component in natural gas. In fact, hydrogen is the smallest molecule on Earth. Its size means it can squeeze into tiny spaces in certain steel alloys in a way that natural gas cannot. That can cause “embrittlement,” making the metal more likely to crack or corrode. Hydrogen molecules are also much more likely to leak from valves, seals, and other connection points on pipelines (which risks undermining green hydrogen’s climate benefits). And hydrogen is transported in a more pressurized state than natural gas, which puts more stress on the pipeline carrying it.
“Rather than transporting 100 percent hydrogen, many companies are now testing whether they can blend hydrogen with natural gas for transport in existing pipelines. In a study released last summer, the California Public Utility Commission found that up to 5 percent hydrogen blended with natural gas appears safe, but higher percentages could lead to embrittlement or a greater chance of pipeline leaks. Internationally, France places the highest cap on hydrogen blending, at 6 percent, according to the International Energy Agency (Germany allows blending at 8 percent under certain conditions).”
If the aim is to reach net zero emissions by 2050, a 90% or 95% methane to 10% or 5% hydrogen gas blend just isn’t that useful for reaching that goal.
(And that’s assuming the hydrogen is green hydrogen as well.)
And if a lot of your infrastructure has to be retrofitted anyway, electrification plus renewables plus storage makes a lot more sense in many cases.
There are still use cases where green hydrogen will be useful — international long-haul flights, rockets, some industrial processes, etc. But it’s not the best solution in most cases.
@WaterWaiver@ajsadauskas Even if the pipelines were not, as a software engineer I don’t get how you get past the incompatible end user appliances in domestic and industrial sectors.
You can get to that 5%, and an ongoing 5% drop is a little helpful, but how do you swap every single gas appliance?
How do you ensure that every single appliance on a network branch is compatible at scale?
You can not do a flag day, surely, but how do you change a stove from one jet to another at the right time?
@ajsadauskas
Thanks for sharing this information.
Still it seems to be more economical to use existing pipelines than new ones. Also a polymer coating is an option.
maybe, if climate change was taken seriously already 25 years ago, non-negligible share of principal gas infrastructure could have been hydrogen-ready by now…
You’re just spreading propaganda against hydrogen. It is fundamental to a zero emissions society. It is even necessary to get the grid to zero emissions. Nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry.
Hydrogen is essential, but we need it for the chemical industry, steelmaking, etc. Using hydrogen as an incredibly expensive and inefficient battery by turning it back into electricity is not the future.
Depends on how much they cost. Since hydrogen energy storage means throwing away 2/3 of the energy you generate, it’s not a viable option unless it’s massively cheaper or batteries just can’t do the job at all.
Yes, that’s the point. The problem of batteries is that you need to mine a vast amount of raw materials for them. So it doesn’t even matter how much “better” they are. It is simply not an answer no matter what.
Up until the mid '90s, that gas supply was provided through a state government agency called the Gas & Fuel Corporation. As with many things in Victoria, it was privatised in the mid 1990s by former premier Jeff Kennett.
“Electrification of the current energy system will be next to impossible if the source is to be
renewable wind, solar and hydro. Natural gas/hydrogen will play a huge role in helping Australia pivot into systems that reduce emissions.”
“In the medium-term, gas providers will begin offering blended gas products. Gas blending
helps to reduce the emissions associated with gas use by blending biomethane, renewable
DME and hydrogen into gas tanks and pipeline systems as part of a long-term effort to reduce
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of producing and consuming gas.”
So the oil and gas industry is pushing biomethane and hydrogen as the solution to replace methane (“natural”) gas.
Most household appliances (ovens, stovetops, hot water systems, heaters, etc) aren’t compatible with hydrogen. Pipes will need to be retrofitted too.
Or they can be replaced with electric appliances, which can be powered from the grid by renewables and battery storage.
Either way, it’s a big retrofit.
FWIW, green hydrogen (as opposed to grey hydrogen from methane, or brown hydrogen from coal) does have its uses in some applications. But it’s not needed for home appliances.
And, going back to the original article, grey hydrogen for buses is not the best way forward for decarbonising transport.
Hydrogen has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures and high pressures to reach any sort of capacity. Desnsity wise your not going to beat cubic kilometers of water halfway up a mountain in cost per kw, even before factoring in the far higher power losses that come with synthesizing or domposing hydrogen.
The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam.
Luckily, it turns out it’s possible to just start manufacturing batteries almost anywhere. You can’t really get lock-in where you’re stuck with their product like with oil and gas.
Wrong. you are totally stuck with the metal requirements needed for those batteries. It is just another dependency. Meanwhile, the alternative such as hydrogen has no such dependencies.
AllNewTypeFace wrote: “I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical.”
To which you replied: “The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries.”
But the fossil fuel industry’s support for hydrogen and biomethane isn’t just some myth cooked up by battery producers.
And you don’t need to take my word on that. Here’s ExxonMobil on hydrogen:
“Hydrogen produces zero greenhouse gas emissions at its point of use. It’s also versatile - suitable for power generation, trucking, and heat-intensive industries like steel and chemicals. We are scaling up production of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce CO2 emissions in our own facilities, and helping others do the same… Natural gas is comprised largely of methane (CH4) and can be turned into hydrogen through a reforming process.”
"Australian Gas Networks and the Australian gas sector has a clear vision for a low carbon future using renewable gases such as hydrogen and biomethane. We know we need to deliver on this vision to help Australia meet national and statebased emissions reductions targets, whilst also maintaining the reliability of supply at lowest cost to our customers.
“Hydrogen Park South Australia and Hydrogen Park Gladstone will demonstrate how we can use the existing gas network to deliver blended gas to customers - the Australian Hydrogen Centre (AHC) is the next step in our journey, delivering feasibility studies on blending 10% renewable hydrogen into towns and cities, and plans for a 100% renewable gas future.”
Here’s Gas Energy Australia, a lobby group that represents LNG gas producers:
“We strongly support the inclusion of hydrogen and biomethane in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Further expanding the way displacement is credited under the ERF to include the full array of emerging renewable gases to replace fossil fuels, would enable the Australian gas industry to make a profound contribution to reducing emissions.”
I can give you more examples, including from submissions to government inquires, but this post is getting too long as it is.
No-one is disputing that green hydrogen has an important role to play in decarbonisation.
But.
When oil & gas firms, and their lobbyists, start touting hydrogen, then people will and should ask questions. And no, that’s not just battery manufacturers.
There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen. It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels. And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy.
What you’re doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. A claim with so many illogical leaps of faiths that it is incoherent. Even wind and solar would be scams in that worldview, since fossil fuel companies spend something on those technologies.
“There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen.”
The oil and gas industry routinely cites the potential of hydrogen and biomethane as substitutes for oil and methane gas, including in submissions to government inquires.
Take a look at any of the submissions to Victoria’s inquiry from an oil or gas industry group.
And going back to the original post, the grey hydrogen to be used in Victoria’s bus trial is not exactly an emissions-free fuel source.
“It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels.”
Because the oil and gas industry knows the prospect of hydrogen is effective at delaying the replacement of gas appliances with electric ones.
“And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy.”
Hydrogen that’s produced with methane gas or coal — what Exxon-Mobil is producing — is not green energy.
“What you’re doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. [Snip]”
Again, green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.
But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.
Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial.
Elsewhere in this thread, you claimed any criticism of hydrogen came from the battery industry or the fossil fuel industry. You have presented nothing to back up that assertion.
To the contrary, the Australian oil and gas industry regularly cites hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid the transition from gas to electric renewable alternatives.
As yet another example, here’s Energy Networks Australia’s Gas Vision 2050 policy statement. Hydrogen is right there on the front page:
“Since Energy Networks Australia and our industry partners launched Gas Vision 2050 two years ago, the industry has invested in research and development, policy analysis and pilot projects to demonstrate these new technologies, with a focus on the role of hydrogen.”
I’ve cited multiple examples of where the oil and gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.
Do you have any concrete examples to back up your assertion that: “The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam”?
This is just Gish gallop. Please shut up. If you use your style of rhetoric, wind, solar and even battery manufacturing are just a scam by the oil companies. This is pure gibberish. Volume of bullshit doesn’t make for a coherent argument.
@Hypx@Baku@AllNewTypeFace@zurohki I’m seeing some big claims from you that “nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry.”
I’m seeing strawman arguments and deflections from you.
But nothing to back up your claims.
You claimed: “The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam.”
Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?
A link to an article?
Anything?
You claimed: “There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen.”
I’ve provided you with multiple examples of where the Australian gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.
You don’t have to take my word for it. I’ve provided links.
Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?
A link to a news article?
Some research?
An academic paper?
Anything at all?
You claim: “You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam.”
That’s clearly not what I, or anyone else in this thread, is arguing.
Once again, here’s my position on hydrogen:
"Green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.
"But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.
“Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial.”
It seems to me you’re constructing strawman arguments and deflections, because you don’t have a strong counter-argument.
Which brings us back to the point you’re deflecting from…
You claim “nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry.”
If you have some evidence of that, I’d love to see it.
You can also extract hydrogen from water. Except now it’s not an insanely impractical idea. Sodium batteries haven’t been invented yet, and will have a much lower energy density.
You have an inverted view of reality. Hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. Your idea don’t exist outside of science projects and underwhelming early demonstration versions.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. That’s why green hydrogen still represents less than a tenth of a percent of global hydrogen production. That’s why there are only more than three hundred and seventy plug in battery vehicles for every hydrogen one, to say nothing of hundred year old green technology like Vancouvers trollybuses.
That’s why for every watt of power a hydrogen fuel cell outputs you only needed 2.3 times as many watts to power it, as compared to batteries which even after transmission and inverting losses require a whole 1.15 watts of input for every watt of output./s
Hydrogen fuel cells are at best, a way for Shell and Chevron to stay relevant. More likely, a way to eat large quantities of money on tech demonstrators instead of proven, off the shelf replacement technologies like overhead wires or batteries.
There are already, largely but not entirely overblown, concerns over how we can build enough electrical generation capacity to make up for eliminating oil and gas. You would need to more than double that new capacity to make hydrogen work. It may have a place in industrial applications, but transport is a dead end. We need solutions now, not expensive tech demos from startups.
I just clicked it and it works. There’s a bunch of sodium ion batteries for sale.
The current fuel cells that waste most of the energy and are manufactured in very small numbers for pilot programs are exactly what I’d describe as underwhelming early demonstration versions.
I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical. That way, it consumes funding and interest that would otherwise be spent on electrification, without threatening the dominance of fossils.
It also can partly re-use natural gas infrastructure, allowing them to exploit existing capital.
@WaterWaiver @AllNewTypeFace There’s a perception that we could just reuse existing methane gas (i.e. “natural gas”) infrastructure for hydrogen. But often that just isn’t the case:
"The pipelines that transport hydrogen are made of the same basic material as most of those built for natural gas: steel. But hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane, the main component in natural gas. In fact, hydrogen is the smallest molecule on Earth. Its size means it can squeeze into tiny spaces in certain steel alloys in a way that natural gas cannot. That can cause “embrittlement,” making the metal more likely to crack or corrode. Hydrogen molecules are also much more likely to leak from valves, seals, and other connection points on pipelines (which risks undermining green hydrogen’s climate benefits). And hydrogen is transported in a more pressurized state than natural gas, which puts more stress on the pipeline carrying it.
“Rather than transporting 100 percent hydrogen, many companies are now testing whether they can blend hydrogen with natural gas for transport in existing pipelines. In a study released last summer, the California Public Utility Commission found that up to 5 percent hydrogen blended with natural gas appears safe, but higher percentages could lead to embrittlement or a greater chance of pipeline leaks. Internationally, France places the highest cap on hydrogen blending, at 6 percent, according to the International Energy Agency (Germany allows blending at 8 percent under certain conditions).”
Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-power-plants-we-have-now-transport-and-burn-hydrogen-or-do-we-need
If the aim is to reach net zero emissions by 2050, a 90% or 95% methane to 10% or 5% hydrogen gas blend just isn’t that useful for reaching that goal.
(And that’s assuming the hydrogen is green hydrogen as well.)
And if a lot of your infrastructure has to be retrofitted anyway, electrification plus renewables plus storage makes a lot more sense in many cases.
There are still use cases where green hydrogen will be useful — international long-haul flights, rockets, some industrial processes, etc. But it’s not the best solution in most cases.
#ClimateChange #hydrogen #gas #NetZero #electrification #transport
Thankyou for that info. I knew it was leaky, but I didn’t realise that pipeline materials were so incompatible.
@WaterWaiver @ajsadauskas Even if the pipelines were not, as a software engineer I don’t get how you get past the incompatible end user appliances in domestic and industrial sectors.
You can get to that 5%, and an ongoing 5% drop is a little helpful, but how do you swap every single gas appliance?
How do you ensure that every single appliance on a network branch is compatible at scale?
You can not do a flag day, surely, but how do you change a stove from one jet to another at the right time?
You’re focusing only on (1) consumer usage and (2) fixed pipelines. There is a bigger variety of gas infrastructure than that.
@ajsadauskas
Thanks for sharing this information.
Still it seems to be more economical to use existing pipelines than new ones. Also a polymer coating is an option.
@WaterWaiver @AllNewTypeFace
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-pipelines
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/stories/repurposing-natural-gas-infrastructure-for-hydrogen.html
@ajsadauskas @WaterWaiver @AllNewTypeFace @25kV
maybe, if climate change was taken seriously already 25 years ago, non-negligible share of principal gas infrastructure could have been hydrogen-ready by now…
You’re just spreading propaganda against hydrogen. It is fundamental to a zero emissions society. It is even necessary to get the grid to zero emissions. Nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry.
Hydrogen is essential, but we need it for the chemical industry, steelmaking, etc. Using hydrogen as an incredibly expensive and inefficient battery by turning it back into electricity is not the future.
@zurohki @Hypx Given the ability to build pretty large hydrogen or ammonia tanks, would it scale better than dams or chemistry for week-plus durations?
Depends on how much they cost. Since hydrogen energy storage means throwing away 2/3 of the energy you generate, it’s not a viable option unless it’s massively cheaper or batteries just can’t do the job at all.
Yes, that’s the point. The problem of batteries is that you need to mine a vast amount of raw materials for them. So it doesn’t even matter how much “better” they are. It is simply not an answer no matter what.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @WaterWaiver @ajsadauskas @zurohki A lot to be said for low capex / high opex in some of these cases.
@abartlet @Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @WaterWaiver @zurohki In the context of Melbourne, around 2 million Victorian households currently use methane (“natural”) gas appliances: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/renters-low-income-households-left-behind-in-race-to-turn-off-gas-20230724-p5dquv.html
Last year, the Victorian state government mandated that new homes and buildings are fully electrified: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/gas-connection-to-be-banned-from-new-homes-in-victoria-20230728-p5dryd.html
Here’s the state government’s media release: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-victorian-homes-go-all-electric-2024
Up until the mid '90s, that gas supply was provided through a state government agency called the Gas & Fuel Corporation. As with many things in Victoria, it was privatised in the mid 1990s by former premier Jeff Kennett.
Here’s all the consultation papers: https://engage.vic.gov.au/help-us-build-victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap
Not surprisingly, the gas industry came out heavily against a mandate to ban the installation of new gas appliances.
This from the Australian Gas Association submission: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download/document/17468
“Electrification of the current energy system will be next to impossible if the source is to be
renewable wind, solar and hydro. Natural gas/hydrogen will play a huge role in helping Australia pivot into systems that reduce emissions.”
From the gas energy association: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download/document/17516
“In the medium-term, gas providers will begin offering blended gas products. Gas blending
helps to reduce the emissions associated with gas use by blending biomethane, renewable
DME and hydrogen into gas tanks and pipeline systems as part of a long-term effort to reduce
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of producing and consuming gas.”
So the oil and gas industry is pushing biomethane and hydrogen as the solution to replace methane (“natural”) gas.
Most household appliances (ovens, stovetops, hot water systems, heaters, etc) aren’t compatible with hydrogen. Pipes will need to be retrofitted too.
Or they can be replaced with electric appliances, which can be powered from the grid by renewables and battery storage.
Either way, it’s a big retrofit.
FWIW, green hydrogen (as opposed to grey hydrogen from methane, or brown hydrogen from coal) does have its uses in some applications. But it’s not needed for home appliances.
And, going back to the original article, grey hydrogen for buses is not the best way forward for decarbonising transport.
Hydrogen has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures and high pressures to reach any sort of capacity. Desnsity wise your not going to beat cubic kilometers of water halfway up a mountain in cost per kw, even before factoring in the far higher power losses that come with synthesizing or domposing hydrogen.
@AllNewTypeFace @Baku
Sounds on brand.
I know I’m late, but I just realised I remember your name from Reddit times and got really excited! Hello!
The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam.
Luckily, it turns out it’s possible to just start manufacturing batteries almost anywhere. You can’t really get lock-in where you’re stuck with their product like with oil and gas.
Wrong. you are totally stuck with the metal requirements needed for those batteries. It is just another dependency. Meanwhile, the alternative such as hydrogen has no such dependencies.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki
AllNewTypeFace wrote: “I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical.”
To which you replied: “The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries.”
But the fossil fuel industry’s support for hydrogen and biomethane isn’t just some myth cooked up by battery producers.
And you don’t need to take my word on that. Here’s ExxonMobil on hydrogen:
“Hydrogen produces zero greenhouse gas emissions at its point of use. It’s also versatile - suitable for power generation, trucking, and heat-intensive industries like steel and chemicals. We are scaling up production of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce CO2 emissions in our own facilities, and helping others do the same… Natural gas is comprised largely of methane (CH4) and can be turned into hydrogen through a reforming process.”
Source: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-industrial-solutions/hydrogen
Here’s what Australian Gas Networks has to say:
"Australian Gas Networks and the Australian gas sector has a clear vision for a low carbon future using renewable gases such as hydrogen and biomethane. We know we need to deliver on this vision to help Australia meet national and statebased emissions reductions targets, whilst also maintaining the reliability of supply at lowest cost to our customers.
“Hydrogen Park South Australia and Hydrogen Park Gladstone will demonstrate how we can use the existing gas network to deliver blended gas to customers - the Australian Hydrogen Centre (AHC) is the next step in our journey, delivering feasibility studies on blending 10% renewable hydrogen into towns and cities, and plans for a 100% renewable gas future.”
Source: https://www.australiangasnetworks.com.au/australian-hydrogen-centre
Here’s Gas Energy Australia, a lobby group that represents LNG gas producers:
“We strongly support the inclusion of hydrogen and biomethane in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Further expanding the way displacement is credited under the ERF to include the full array of emerging renewable gases to replace fossil fuels, would enable the Australian gas industry to make a profound contribution to reducing emissions.”
Source: https://www.gasenergyaus.au/about/aims.html
I can give you more examples, including from submissions to government inquires, but this post is getting too long as it is.
No-one is disputing that green hydrogen has an important role to play in decarbonisation.
But.
When oil & gas firms, and their lobbyists, start touting hydrogen, then people will and should ask questions. And no, that’s not just battery manufacturers.
There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen. It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels. And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy.
What you’re doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. A claim with so many illogical leaps of faiths that it is incoherent. Even wind and solar would be scams in that worldview, since fossil fuel companies spend something on those technologies.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki
“There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen.”
The oil and gas industry routinely cites the potential of hydrogen and biomethane as substitutes for oil and methane gas, including in submissions to government inquires.
Take a look at any of the submissions to Victoria’s inquiry from an oil or gas industry group.
Almost every single one, including the submission from Exxon-Mobil, cites hydrogen and biomethane as their preferred long-term options: https://engage.vic.gov.au/help-us-build-victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap
And going back to the original post, the grey hydrogen to be used in Victoria’s bus trial is not exactly an emissions-free fuel source.
“It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels.”
Because the oil and gas industry knows the prospect of hydrogen is effective at delaying the replacement of gas appliances with electric ones.
“And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy.”
Hydrogen that’s produced with methane gas or coal — what Exxon-Mobil is producing — is not green energy.
“What you’re doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. [Snip]”
Again, green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.
But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.
Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial.
Elsewhere in this thread, you claimed any criticism of hydrogen came from the battery industry or the fossil fuel industry. You have presented nothing to back up that assertion.
To the contrary, the Australian oil and gas industry regularly cites hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid the transition from gas to electric renewable alternatives.
As yet another example, here’s Energy Networks Australia’s Gas Vision 2050 policy statement. Hydrogen is right there on the front page:
“Since Energy Networks Australia and our industry partners launched Gas Vision 2050 two years ago, the industry has invested in research and development, policy analysis and pilot projects to demonstrate these new technologies, with a focus on the role of hydrogen.”
https://www.energynetworks.com.au/projects/gas-vision-2050/
I’ve cited multiple examples of where the oil and gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.
Do you have any concrete examples to back up your assertion that: “The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam”?
This is just Gish gallop. Please shut up. If you use your style of rhetoric, wind, solar and even battery manufacturing are just a scam by the oil companies. This is pure gibberish. Volume of bullshit doesn’t make for a coherent argument.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki I’m seeing some big claims from you that “nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry.”
I’m seeing strawman arguments and deflections from you.
But nothing to back up your claims.
Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?
A link to an article?
Anything?
I’ve provided you with multiple examples of where the Australian gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.
You don’t have to take my word for it. I’ve provided links.
Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?
A link to a news article?
Some research?
An academic paper?
Anything at all?
That’s clearly not what I, or anyone else in this thread, is arguing.
Once again, here’s my position on hydrogen:
"Green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.
"But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.
“Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial.”
It seems to me you’re constructing strawman arguments and deflections, because you don’t have a strong counter-argument.
Which brings us back to the point you’re deflecting from…
If you have some evidence of that, I’d love to see it.
A link to a news article?
Some research?
An academic paper?
Anything at all?
You can extract lithium from ocean water, you know? Nothing else in an LFP battery is rare, and we’ve got sodium batteries starting to roll out.
You can also extract hydrogen from water. Except now it’s not an insanely impractical idea. Sodium batteries haven’t been invented yet, and will have a much lower energy density.
I mean… you can order some right now if you want. Their energy density isn’t that bad.
They’re in the production ramp phase, not the hoping for future technology phase like hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen storage.
The link is dead.
You have an inverted view of reality. Hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. Your idea don’t exist outside of science projects and underwhelming early demonstration versions.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. That’s why green hydrogen still represents less than a tenth of a percent of global hydrogen production. That’s why there are only more than three hundred and seventy plug in battery vehicles for every hydrogen one, to say nothing of hundred year old green technology like Vancouvers trollybuses.
That’s why for every watt of power a hydrogen fuel cell outputs you only needed 2.3 times as many watts to power it, as compared to batteries which even after transmission and inverting losses require a whole 1.15 watts of input for every watt of output./s
Hydrogen fuel cells are at best, a way for Shell and Chevron to stay relevant. More likely, a way to eat large quantities of money on tech demonstrators instead of proven, off the shelf replacement technologies like overhead wires or batteries.
There are already, largely but not entirely overblown, concerns over how we can build enough electrical generation capacity to make up for eliminating oil and gas. You would need to more than double that new capacity to make hydrogen work. It may have a place in industrial applications, but transport is a dead end. We need solutions now, not expensive tech demos from startups.
I just clicked it and it works. There’s a bunch of sodium ion batteries for sale.
The current fuel cells that waste most of the energy and are manufactured in very small numbers for pilot programs are exactly what I’d describe as underwhelming early demonstration versions.