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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It literally takes one company to serious invest in green hydrogen as an environmentally friendly solution to debunk your entire conspiracy theory. Which obvious has been proven long ago.
Again, you're using Gish gallop. It's utter bullshit. It's not even worth anyone's time to try an debunk. The better move is to flag you as a corporate stooge and a dishonest liar and ignore you from the rest of the conversation.
@Hypx@Baku@AllNewTypeFace@zurohki "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."
Citation needed.
"There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."
The very article is about powering a bus with hydrogen. It is both mass transit and green.
The problem is that you are so deep in your brainwashing that it is impossible to hold a conversation with you. You are pretty much a climate change denier. If you haven't realized that yet, then you're too stupid to realize that you're one of them.
@Hypx@Baku@AllNewTypeFace@zurohki Still no link to back up your claim 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."
Still no link to back up your claim that: "There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."
More ad hominem attacks, no moreflections, still no links to any source to back up those two claims.
You do have some source to back up those two claims, right?
Again, electric buses already exist. They're called trolleybuses. It's pretty obvious that battery powered buses are madness and are a way of reinventing the wheel. And raging against hydrogen powered buses is just part of the BEV propaganda mill. As if e-buses cannot exist without giant batteries.
Again, you're the one spreading a conspiracy theory. You need to prove your case, not me. Which is pretty much impossible because it is so obviously bullshit.
@Hypx@Baku@AllNewTypeFace@zurohki And still no link to back up your claim that: "There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."
Still no link to back up your claim 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."
Again, this is Gish gallop. You cannot bullshit your way out of this. Again, you're being the brainwashed climate change denier who thinks expanding mass transit is somehow a conspiracy of the oil companies. No one has time nor patience to tell you down.
Ultimately, you're just a piece of brainwashed scum. Seriously, fuck you.
"There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for 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."
Seriously, even a link to where "battery investors" are saying this will do.
Do you have a link to an article that supports these two claims?
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.
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.
But it doesn't matter. Those are hoax products. None of them exist in the real world. You can't actually buy them, or they are secretly some other type of battery. No one has actually seen a working sodium-ion battery in public.
Fuel cells are already in mass production. Again, you are simply living in the early 2000s on this subject. You are wildly outdated on your knowledge.
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.
It’s funny, your quoting BP and Shell about climate change while comparing me a denier. You could disprove the solar cell argument a decade ago, but yon haven’t even bothered to try to defend hydrogen, just continuing with personal attacks on everyone vaguely critical of the oil companies magic solution.
You're too brainwashed to know what you're talking about. Very likely you're just regurgitating what the battery industry wants you to think.
Hydrogen is obvious a zero emissions fuel. It is as self-evident as wind or solar. What you doing is the exact same thing as what climate change deniers did. Somehow argue that new green technology is secretly a scam, or it is impossible, or a trick by the fossil fuel industry. In reality, saying such obvious lies makes you the climate change denier.
You mean a tenth of one single percent is possibly zero emissions, the rest is a heavy emissions fuel. Hydrogen is not a new technology, hydrogen fuel cells powered the bloody moon landing, and that one had a ten percent higher efficiency than the ones you’d find in any modern, technology demonstrator, i mean vehicle.
Battery technology has seen continuous practical improvement in density, efficiency, and capacity over the last forty years. Fuel cells haven’t, not significantly anyway, and are just as impractical for common useage now as they were then.
Again, i can’t help but notice that you haven’t presented any evidence for your extraordinary claims, any reason to believe that this tech could possibly do what you claim is self evident, just make personal attacks.
Same story with solar cells, again. Everything starts at zero, and nothing is magically perfect from day one. You are doing exactly what climate change deniers said about all new green technologies when they first came out.
Meanwhile, battery cars are older than internal combustion cars. You think you have a point here, but you don't. You are cheering on totally obsolete technology as if it is anything new.
In reality, you are just being brainwashed by corporate propaganda. All you're digging your hole even deeper, and even more indistinguishable from blatant climate change denier.
Everything starts at zero, but we arn’t on day zero of fuel cell development. We’re on decade six. There is already massive demand for green hydrogen at a comprehensive price, just as there has been for years, yet supply remains at a tiny fraction of a percent.
Electric cars are not new, but practical alternatives to lead acid batteries are. Yet somehow, despite these new battery chemistry’s being so much newer than hydrogen, they now make up more than half of all new cars sold in some countries. Hydrogen cars came out in the nineties, and still can’t find buyers.
Also, for someone who is calling me brainwashed, your the one who can’t seem to find a single verifiable fact to back up your argument. Just saying over and over again that if you don’t support a fossil fuel your a climate change denier.
And we are in the second century of battery powered cars. Even solar cells are technical over 100 years old.
The difference is that we already tried battery powered cars, and replace them with internal combustion cars. It is fundamentally an obsolete idea. Guys like you want us to stop advancing and stop stick with obsolete technology.
You're frankly too deep in your delusion to be worth "disproving." As long as you oppose green energy, you are a climate change denier. And as a long as you reject new ideas, you are a Luddite. There is no need to go into detail over how nonsensical your position actually is.
Except your the one opposing green energy at every turn. Hydrogen created from natural gas can not in any way be called green energy, and yet that’s what your defending to the exclusion of actual green energy solutions. Hydrogen powered transport is not a new idea, just a failed one.
Lead Acid cars failed, not batteries in general. Thouse have advanced to the point they are more common than gas in some countries new cars. Hydrogen by contrast has remained a oil executive fantasy.
Wrong. You're the one opposed to green energy at every turn. You're just so brainwashed you can't even understand your own position.
Everything is as green as its energy source. Electricity can also be made from natural gas. Is electricity now an elaborate conspiracy by the oil companies? Seriously, it's multiple levels of delusional thinking and cognitive dissonance.
No one has every built commercial hydrogen cars until a few years ago. It is fundamentally a never-before-seen technology. If you reject the climate change denier tag, then you get the Luddite tag.
Toyota and Honda both began leasing Hydogen cars over twenty years ago. By twenty twenty, all but three of half a dozen major automakers to release hydogen vehicles had abandoned development in favor of batteries.
It is absolutely ludicrous to compare electricity to hydrogen. Eighty percent of my electricity is powerd by renewables with no oil company involved, as compared to the fraction of a single percent of hydogen. To think the two are the same is to so fundamentally reject reality in favor of propaganda that i don’t even know where to start.
You mean in a series of highly experimental vehicles and with no refueling infrastructure, then sure. But in reality, no has seriously tried hydrogen cars until recently. All the support for BEVs is just the result of government subsidies. It is entirely a fake market, and will die off as soon as the subsidies end.
Wind and solar were just rounding errors on the grid until recently. You could've easily made the same argument for BEVs until recently. Not that it matters, because the insanely resource dependent and extremely expensive batteries doom them to inevitable obsolescence for a second time. Car companies that won't get on board with hydrogen will just die off.
You know hydogen requires the same batteries right? Enough platinum to directly power a car is far to expensive, so all hydrogen cars need a large battery to store charge for acceleration.
If BEVs are the result of subsidies, then why are hydrogen vehicles, which enjoy the exact same subsidies still a rounding error? Before you say fueling infrastructure, note that Honda spent quite a lot of money trying to build that out in 2008. Also note that a failure in fuel infrastructure is also a failure of hydrogen.
Batteries can be recycled, hydrogen still has to be made out of fossil fuels for very single fill up. If the market for BEVs is artificial, then why would there suddenly be a market for a far more expensive and far less convenient technology like hydrogen?
You mean 1-2 kWh of batteries? Not the same thing. The platinum claim is outdated. It is no more than a catalytic convertor in newer designs.
Hydrogen have not received any real subsidies, at least not yet anyways. The main limiting factor has been the refueling system, which has been mostly ignored until recently. All of this is changing though. The next big deal in green energy is the hydrogen infrastructure.
Again, stop repeating climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen is made from water. When used, it turns back into water. It literally self-recycles with zero effort. Batteries are infinitely inferior on this criteria.
Except hydrogen is not made from just water, now is it. It’s made by using two tones of methane gas and five tons of water to make one ton of methane and six tones of co2. Thouse six tons of co2 are not recycled, neither is the natural gas that was used to make it. To say otherwise is what actual climate change denial looks like, as it is literally denying that a process emits vast quantities of co2 in favor of pretending it doesn’t exist. Hydrogen vehicles revive the exact same subsides as battery vehicles dispite this, and and have had public refueling points in California for over a decade.
Again, stop with your climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen can be made from water. Just like electricity can be made from green sources. Saying that it must be made from fossil fuels is a conspiracy theory and just proves that you are climate change denier.
I never said it must be, indeed k have very clearly brought up the amount that is made from just water several times.
It can be made from just water, but is ninty nine point nine percent of it made from just water? No, it is not. It is made from steam methane reforming. Even the companies betting their future on hydrogen say as much, to pretend otherwise is quite literally denying that co2 is related to climate change.
Again, you're repeating more climate change denier rhetoric. Again, you can make hydrogen from water. It is as green as its energy source. This is the exact same argument as the one made for BEVs. If you cannot wrapped your head around that, then you are too brainwashed by BEV propaganda to even see straight.
Hydogen is as green as the energy source, and the energy source in the article were talking about is explicitly fossil fuel only. As previously mentioned, BEVs don’t need to waste nearly two thirds of the power the consume. Many of them are already fully powered by solar, unlike the aforementioned tenth of a percent of hydrogen, and they have half the cost.
This is going nowhere. You either won’t even read my comments or more likely are just trolling. If so, while this “debate” was admittedly amusing your mostly just making an ass of yourself in public.
If you really are deluded enough to have been serious however. I ask, do you already own one of the thousands hydogen cars, as compared to the millions of EVs?
Ohh who am i kidding, i doubt you’ll even stop to think about this. Instead you just project and repeat the same arguments you have no doubt heard leveled against hydogen, but don’t really understand why they make you feel unsure or you’d see how silly they are when taken out of that context.
You keep calling me a climate change denier while outright denying the climate impacts of your pet idea. You call everything propaganda while repeating the same few feel good lines right out of mouths of oil company marking teams. You talk about hydogen like it’s two thousand and there’s still a question as to what will power the cars of the future.
In the time since then we’ve nearly doubled the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Maybe in another twenty years we’ll have enough idle solar and wind to create the enough green hydrogen to satisfy its use in steel and a thousand other industries. I do hope so, but today it is doing nothing but adding to emissions while taking money from well proven technologies.
These buses could have been outfitted with overhead lines in 1990 to draw all thier power from solar and wind, but now will continue to use fossil fuels well into the future in the hope an oil company delivers on its promise to dispose of itself.
I’m not going to continue this, I had hoped that while you would no doubt be too set into your ways to be convinced, the information might prove useful to anyone scrooling past, but at this point your just saying the same lines over and over agian, with no actual information to even disprove or add context to. Besides we’re far to deep for anyone sensible to still be reading.
Add comment