3 ms·

The only reason it's discussed is because the fossil fuel industry has a lot of experience and infrastructure around liquid fuels. It wants a future where there

The only reason it's discussed is because the fossil fuel industry has a lot of experience and infrastructure around liquid fuels. It wants a future where there is a new liquid fuel so that it can leverage that experience and infrastructure. They are pouring huge sums into moving the academic and public conversation in the direction of hydrogen - it's like the tobacco companies all over again. Don't trust a word that comes out of anyones mouth, it's all designed to further some agenda or other. There's continuous information warfare going on all around us.

Animats 4y ago
Yes. I'm surprised to see this from Bill Gates: "Another option is to produce hydrogen using the current methods that burn fossil fuels and then capture the CO2 produced in the process before it’s released in the atmosphere. It may never be economical to capture 100 percent of the carbon released using incumbent technologies, but while we’re waiting for thousands of industrial facilities to retrofit their infrastructure, carbon capture can help drive emissions way down." That's the oil industry position. See "Blue hydrogen". The "hydrogen economy" concept made more sense a decade ago. Solar cells, wind farms, and batteries have improved so much that it's obsolete. (Now if we can just get the US auto industry to produce electric cars fast enough to keep up with demand. The electric light truck sector is running at least a year behind. This is being used as an excuse for premium pricing.)
- ncmncm 4y ago
  There will be market for as much hydrogen as we can ever produce. Much of it will be bound to nitrogen, for ammonia, or to carbon, for kerosene, used directly in e.g. steel manufacture and in aircraft, and as feedstock for thousands of chemical processes. It will undercut any sort of extractive stuff, because marginal cost is near zero. Wherever it can be used in place of one of the other things, it will be, because it will be the cheapest portable energy.
lukeschlather 4y ago
While we do need to be suspicious, we can't reject technical solutions on the grounds that it would be too convenient if it worked. Whatever we do does need to be reasonably convenient.

Animats 4y ago

Yes. I'm surprised to see this from Bill Gates: "Another option is to produce hydrogen using the current methods that burn fossil fuels and then capture the CO2 produced in the process before it’s released in the atmosphere. It may never be economical to capture 100 percent of the carbon released using incumbent technologies, but while we’re waiting for thousands of industrial facilities to retrofit their infrastructure, carbon capture can help drive emissions way down." That's the oil industry position. See "Blue hydrogen". The "hydrogen economy" concept made more sense a decade ago. Solar cells, wind farms, and batteries have improved so much that it's obsolete. (Now if we can just get the US auto industry to produce electric cars fast enough to keep up with demand. The electric light truck sector is running at least a year behind. This is being used as an excuse for premium pricing.)

ncmncm 4y ago
There will be market for as much hydrogen as we can ever produce. Much of it will be bound to nitrogen, for ammonia, or to carbon, for kerosene, used directly in e.g. steel manufacture and in aircraft, and as feedstock for thousands of chemical processes. It will undercut any sort of extractive stuff, because marginal cost is near zero. Wherever it can be used in place of one of the other things, it will be, because it will be the cheapest portable energy.

lukeschlather 4y ago

While we do need to be suspicious, we can't reject technical solutions on the grounds that it would be too convenient if it worked. Whatever we do does need to be reasonably convenient.