4 ms·

much like clean coal

aussiesnack 4y ago
No. Clean coal doesn't really exist, whereas green hydrogen does. Agree however that the messaging around it has great greenwash potential. That was deffo Australia's previous fed government's intent with it.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  Clean = no additional gh emissions. Production of anything, including hydrogen produces a lot of additional emissions. Green hydrogen is just relatively "greener" than alternatives but that doesn't matter in the long run, just like replacing brown coal with black coal is a "greener" but doesn't matter in the long run.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    "Production of anything, including hydrogen produces a lot of additional emissions" Why would you say that? I mean, some sort of pollutant emission is inevitable in any heavy industry, but there's no physical reason it has to involve the transfer of carbon that's been locked under the ground for 100s of millions of years into the atmosphere, which is the only thing we really need to stop doing (unless some sort of process for extracting it from the atmosphere again at the same rate we add it is feasible, which isn't looking particularly likely).
    - mac01021 4y ago
      I think you're both right. Introducing H2 as a fuel only helps matters if the energy used to produce the H2 is not from fossil fuels, and probably hurts otherwise. Right now the world produces a small fraction of its electricity cleanly and the rest using fossil fuels. If you want to divert some of that human energy consumption from heating/cooling/cooking/lighting/computing to H2 production then how do you make sure the diverted energy is from clean sources and that those consumers don't take it upon themselves to fill the new hole in their lives with additional fossil consumption? If you're going to say we should create petawatt-hours-per-year of additional electricity generation capacity in order to do this, that sounds great but the infrastructure doesn't exist and it will take decades-to-centuries to build it. So, I'm very much in favor of developing and maintaining the technological expertise required to use H2 for energy. I'm not nearly as convinced when it comes to trying to deploy it at scale in the 2020s.
      - aussiesnack 4y ago
        > I think you're both right. Introducing H2 as a fuel only helps matters if the energy used to produce the H2 is not from fossil fuels, and probably hurts otherwise. That's "green hydrogen" by definition - ie. what this article & discussion is all about. The gp is simply mistaken, and the coal analogy is ridiculous. Whether green hydro turns out to be economic/scalable is a separate matter.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    But then nothing is clean. There are significant emissions from the production of everything from turbines, batteries, cabling etc.
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      Almost nothing, yes. Only active GH gas sequestration from atmosphere can be clean, and even then it's not guaranteed. We, as humanity, need to somehow quantify total emissions produced from any given activity, and then grade it somehow. Currently we have super primitive grading - 1) green and 2) not green. Which is completely insufficient and often misleading in third decade of 21 century. I don't have hard numbers, but I'm pretty sure that hydrogen is much much less green than some other alternatives like solar in total footprint. But we lump them together as if they are equally good. Same as with corporations going carbon neutral - one company is doing actual carbon sequestration and is really neutral, another company is cheating and just buying carbon credits from some undeveloped country and pretends to be neutral too (especially if they are just using existing forests as a claim). They are not the same but the names are.
  - aussiesnack 4y ago
    Green hydrogen production creates zero operational carbon emissions. The brown/black coal comparison is silly.

No. Clean coal doesn't really exist, whereas green hydrogen does. Agree however that the messaging around it has great greenwash potential. That was deffo Australia's previous fed government's intent with it.

Yizahi 4y ago
Clean = no additional gh emissions. Production of anything, including hydrogen produces a lot of additional emissions. Green hydrogen is just relatively "greener" than alternatives but that doesn't matter in the long run, just like replacing brown coal with black coal is a "greener" but doesn't matter in the long run.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  "Production of anything, including hydrogen produces a lot of additional emissions" Why would you say that? I mean, some sort of pollutant emission is inevitable in any heavy industry, but there's no physical reason it has to involve the transfer of carbon that's been locked under the ground for 100s of millions of years into the atmosphere, which is the only thing we really need to stop doing (unless some sort of process for extracting it from the atmosphere again at the same rate we add it is feasible, which isn't looking particularly likely).
  - mac01021 4y ago
    I think you're both right. Introducing H2 as a fuel only helps matters if the energy used to produce the H2 is not from fossil fuels, and probably hurts otherwise. Right now the world produces a small fraction of its electricity cleanly and the rest using fossil fuels. If you want to divert some of that human energy consumption from heating/cooling/cooking/lighting/computing to H2 production then how do you make sure the diverted energy is from clean sources and that those consumers don't take it upon themselves to fill the new hole in their lives with additional fossil consumption? If you're going to say we should create petawatt-hours-per-year of additional electricity generation capacity in order to do this, that sounds great but the infrastructure doesn't exist and it will take decades-to-centuries to build it. So, I'm very much in favor of developing and maintaining the technological expertise required to use H2 for energy. I'm not nearly as convinced when it comes to trying to deploy it at scale in the 2020s.
    - aussiesnack 4y ago
      > I think you're both right. Introducing H2 as a fuel only helps matters if the energy used to produce the H2 is not from fossil fuels, and probably hurts otherwise. That's "green hydrogen" by definition - ie. what this article & discussion is all about. The gp is simply mistaken, and the coal analogy is ridiculous. Whether green hydro turns out to be economic/scalable is a separate matter.
- threeseed 4y ago
  But then nothing is clean. There are significant emissions from the production of everything from turbines, batteries, cabling etc.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    Almost nothing, yes. Only active GH gas sequestration from atmosphere can be clean, and even then it's not guaranteed. We, as humanity, need to somehow quantify total emissions produced from any given activity, and then grade it somehow. Currently we have super primitive grading - 1) green and 2) not green. Which is completely insufficient and often misleading in third decade of 21 century. I don't have hard numbers, but I'm pretty sure that hydrogen is much much less green than some other alternatives like solar in total footprint. But we lump them together as if they are equally good. Same as with corporations going carbon neutral - one company is doing actual carbon sequestration and is really neutral, another company is cheating and just buying carbon credits from some undeveloped country and pretends to be neutral too (especially if they are just using existing forests as a claim). They are not the same but the names are.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  Green hydrogen production creates zero operational carbon emissions. The brown/black coal comparison is silly.