4 ms·

this is like saying that the knife industry is setup for murders. your statement completely ignores the rapidly developing green hydrogen industry. Those are

this is like saying that the knife industry is setup for murders. your statement completely ignores the rapidly developing green hydrogen industry. Those are TODAY sources. just because there are large number of non-clean doesn't mean the clean ones dont exist.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Green hydrogen is not a fuel source. It takes more energy to create green hydrogen than it provides as a fuel, so green hydrogen is a energy transport mechanism, not a source.
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  We can call hydrogen a source or a transport, but it is just semantics. If we call green hydrogen a transport then oil is also a transport, and if oil is a source then green hydro is also a source. It takes more energy to create oil, gas or hydropower than we get out of it as well. Most of our energy sources are just stored solar energy that would otherwise have gone to waste. The idea with green hydrogen is the same, create hydrogen from energy that would otherwise go to waste. One can argue that hydrogen isn't the most efficient storage mechanism, but I don't understand why it should be dismissed as a source separately from all other storage mechanisms.
- fortran77 4y ago
  If bursty, uneven sources of energy like wind and solar can be used to produced hydrogen via electrolysis, it could still be a win for reducing carbon emissions even though more energy was used to separate the water than can be achieved by burning the resulting hydrogen. It is a way to store the energy, admittedly at a loss, from wind and solar.
  - ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
    The market will hopefully decide if it is efficient and not government regulation
    - fortran77 4y ago
      ?? This is a non-sequitur.
    - imhoguy 4y ago
      Rather lobbying and subsides decide what is efficient.
  - defrost 4y ago
    Ammonia is a major product itself: Hydrogen has many industrial applications in processes such as oil refining and steel making. But ammonia production is by far the biggest single consumer, using around 50 per cent of global hydrogen production. Ammonia itself also has many uses, including as a feedstock in the production of nitrogen fertilisers for farming. But making ammonia releases around 500 million tonnes of CO2 emissions each year, or 1.8 per cent of global emissions. Some of the people involved in mining and moving 16x the annual US iron ore production here in Australia have plans to dominate the global green hydrogen market, first with traditional electrolysis and later with recent breakthrough technologies using novel catalysts and filters. If you're interested in where they're planning to go, see (for starting points): https://www.fool.com.au/2022/12/09/will-fortescues-green-hydrogen-plans-really-pay-off-for-shareholders/ https://www.fool.com.au/2022/12/09/will-fortescues-green-hyd... https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ https://arena.gov.au/blog/fortescue-plans-massive-hydrogen-electrolyser-in-brisbane/ https://arena.gov.au/blog/fortescue-plans-massive-hydrogen-e... etc. (there are multiple capital projects on the go ATM)
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    You're reinforcing my point by showing that green hydrogen has similar use cases to batteries. Nobody considers batteries a fuel source. Batteries and green hydrogen are energy storage, not fuel sources. And as you said, energy storage is a crucial part of decarbonization.
- senectus1 4y ago
  this is so much bullshit. Green Hydrogen is just as much a fuel source as Gasoline is. Do you think it takes no energy to mine, refine and transport gasoline? It might not fit in your current view of the world where the cost of our environment is zero sum to you, but that cost MUST be factored into it.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > it takes no energy to mine, refine and transport gasoline The fact that these systems often burn their own fuel as power while exporting a premium should show that yes, extracting and producing oil and gas is net energy contributing in a way green hydrogen is not.
    - Kon5ole 4y ago
      Gasoline is a transport mechanism for solar power just like green hydrogen is. The difference is only that oil was stored by nature millions of years ago while green hydro is stored by humans today. The important point is whether or not the energy used to create it was "free". From a human perspective, the energy that was spent creating oil was "free". But if you have an intermittent surplus of renewable power and use it to create green hydrogen it is also "free".
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > if you have an intermittent surplus of renewable power and use it to create green hydrogen it is also "free" This ignores every competing method of energy storage.
        _hypx 4y ago
        Practically no competing energy storage idea is going to be as cheap. With hydrogen, the only raw material is water. Nothing else can claim that they are utilizing resources that plentiful.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  That's true of literally any fuel AFAICT, the sole possible exception being naturally-free hydrogen in e.g. space (and even that's ignoring the oxygen needed to combust it). Just because nature paid the energy costs to make that gallon of oil doesn't mean said energy costs are ignorable.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Green hydrogen is not a fuel source. It takes more energy to create green hydrogen than it provides as a fuel, so green hydrogen is a energy transport mechanism, not a source.

Kon5ole 4y ago
We can call hydrogen a source or a transport, but it is just semantics. If we call green hydrogen a transport then oil is also a transport, and if oil is a source then green hydro is also a source. It takes more energy to create oil, gas or hydropower than we get out of it as well. Most of our energy sources are just stored solar energy that would otherwise have gone to waste. The idea with green hydrogen is the same, create hydrogen from energy that would otherwise go to waste. One can argue that hydrogen isn't the most efficient storage mechanism, but I don't understand why it should be dismissed as a source separately from all other storage mechanisms.
fortran77 4y ago
If bursty, uneven sources of energy like wind and solar can be used to produced hydrogen via electrolysis, it could still be a win for reducing carbon emissions even though more energy was used to separate the water than can be achieved by burning the resulting hydrogen. It is a way to store the energy, admittedly at a loss, from wind and solar.
- ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
  The market will hopefully decide if it is efficient and not government regulation
  - fortran77 4y ago
    ?? This is a non-sequitur.
  - imhoguy 4y ago
    Rather lobbying and subsides decide what is efficient.
- defrost 4y ago
  Ammonia is a major product itself: Hydrogen has many industrial applications in processes such as oil refining and steel making. But ammonia production is by far the biggest single consumer, using around 50 per cent of global hydrogen production. Ammonia itself also has many uses, including as a feedstock in the production of nitrogen fertilisers for farming. But making ammonia releases around 500 million tonnes of CO2 emissions each year, or 1.8 per cent of global emissions. Some of the people involved in mining and moving 16x the annual US iron ore production here in Australia have plans to dominate the global green hydrogen market, first with traditional electrolysis and later with recent breakthrough technologies using novel catalysts and filters. If you're interested in where they're planning to go, see (for starting points): https://www.fool.com.au/2022/12/09/will-fortescues-green-hydrogen-plans-really-pay-off-for-shareholders/ https://www.fool.com.au/2022/12/09/will-fortescues-green-hyd... https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/ https://arena.gov.au/blog/fortescue-plans-massive-hydrogen-electrolyser-in-brisbane/ https://arena.gov.au/blog/fortescue-plans-massive-hydrogen-e... etc. (there are multiple capital projects on the go ATM)
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  You're reinforcing my point by showing that green hydrogen has similar use cases to batteries. Nobody considers batteries a fuel source. Batteries and green hydrogen are energy storage, not fuel sources. And as you said, energy storage is a crucial part of decarbonization.
senectus1 4y ago
this is so much bullshit. Green Hydrogen is just as much a fuel source as Gasoline is. Do you think it takes no energy to mine, refine and transport gasoline? It might not fit in your current view of the world where the cost of our environment is zero sum to you, but that cost MUST be factored into it.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > it takes no energy to mine, refine and transport gasoline The fact that these systems often burn their own fuel as power while exporting a premium should show that yes, extracting and producing oil and gas is net energy contributing in a way green hydrogen is not.
  - Kon5ole 4y ago
    Gasoline is a transport mechanism for solar power just like green hydrogen is. The difference is only that oil was stored by nature millions of years ago while green hydro is stored by humans today. The important point is whether or not the energy used to create it was "free". From a human perspective, the energy that was spent creating oil was "free". But if you have an intermittent surplus of renewable power and use it to create green hydrogen it is also "free".
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > if you have an intermittent surplus of renewable power and use it to create green hydrogen it is also "free" This ignores every competing method of energy storage.
      - _hypx 4y ago
        Practically no competing energy storage idea is going to be as cheap. With hydrogen, the only raw material is water. Nothing else can claim that they are utilizing resources that plentiful.
yellowapple 4y ago
That's true of literally any fuel AFAICT, the sole possible exception being naturally-free hydrogen in e.g. space (and even that's ignoring the oxygen needed to combust it). Just because nature paid the energy costs to make that gallon of oil doesn't mean said energy costs are ignorable.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]