5 ms·

You are just showing more of your backwards thinking and closemindedness. For starters, most hydrogen today is made from natural gas, so all infrastructure is

by _hypx 3y ago

You are just showing more of your backwards thinking and closemindedness. For starters, most hydrogen today is made from natural gas, so all infrastructure is just natural gas based. If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure. This story resembles the rise of LNG and how people dismissed it as impossible for multiple years. Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen. Your dreams of overbuilding wind and solar makes this even more self-evident that green hydrogen will be nearly free. Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction. Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production. This is so obvious that only people brainwashed by BEV propaganda can refuse to accept it. PS: H2 Science Coalition is a anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
The only close mindedness going around is your apperant fixation on Hydrogen as a goal in and of itself, rather than on producing and providng clean energy. You are seeing what you want to see. And what I see is someone showing a complete lack of knowledge about material science. > If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure. The existing natural gas infrastructure will not simply "switch over" because it fundamentally is incapable of safely transporting hydrogen. You need different material properties in your metal to handle hydrogen (see hydrogen embritlement as one reason), to say nothing of the other equipment involved. These cannot be "switched over", they must be completely replaced. This in fact is the thinking that's backwards: continue to think about chemical energy carriers and moving them around in pipes. This made sense when we started with chemicals (fossil fuels), but it makes no sense when our starting point is electricity. Simply store and more that electriicty around. > Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen. > Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production. No it won't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. Further, if you're buying electricity for a negative price, you're getting it from a coal/gas plant which is decidedly not green. Or if you're lucky from a nuclear plant. Very cheap electricity is a necessary condition for cheap green hydrogen, not an incentive for it. Again, cheap is not free, and at the energy requirements needed per kg of H2, even cheap adds up quickly. Further, the equipment to produce, store, and transport it are not cheap, and are certainly not free. > Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction. All together now: the sun shines and wind blows even if you turn off your solar panels and wind turbines. Nothing is wasted. > anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it. Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true. As for the H2 Science Coalition, they clearly are not. They are very clear that hydrogen has it's uses (and its own major decarbonization problems). But that it's simply very poorly suited to be "an energy carrier".
- _hypx 3y ago
  How is that any different than anyone with an obsession with green energy? In reality, it is a necessary component of a sustainable society. Something that you failed to realize. What I know is that your position on hydrogen is pure FUD. I know as a matter of fact that your views on the material science side of things are false. You can send hydrogen via natural gas pipelines. It is fully possible to "switch over." At worst, you will have to line the insides with some kind of coating: https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2023-02/Hydrogen%20Gas_White%20Paper%202023.pdf https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2023-02/Hyd... And yet a pipeline is 10x cheaper than sending electricity. As it turns, basic physics does not change no matter how strongly you describe it as "backwards": https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... You are continuing to deny reality with this post: If you are talking about massive overprovisioning, then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. And you can beat around the bush all you want; it does not change the fact that practically free electricity is happening right now, and it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Again, the only necessary resource is water. The cost floor is far lower than any other idea you can conceive of. And since it is cheaper to store and move hydrogen around that electricity, you will eventually abandon an all electricity-based solution in favor of one that moves energy around with hydrogen. > Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true. No one is fixated on hydrogen. It is the anti-hydrogen Luddites that are fixated on stopping it. This inevitably causes a conflict where rational and non-brainwashed people come out and say "No, you really do have to accept this that this is a necessary part of the solution."
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    There's little point of rehashing things a 6th time, but I'll leave this for people who come back later and ever read this: > then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. Solar and wind do not have negative electricity rates. Negative electricity rates are caused by a fixed/hard to ramp down source (nuclear/coal/gas) whose electricity is not needed. These plant cannot be turned on and off quickly ebnough to not produce this excess electricity, and because the grid must remain balanced (all the production must be immediately met by demand) they have to pay people to take the electricity off their hands because it's the cheapest option for them. Solar and wind you can simply turn off, they do not have to pay peopel to take excess energy off their hands since they can simply choose not to make it. Adding solar and wind will cause negative rates to occur, but it is not the solar and wind that are paying those negative values, it is the gas/coal/nuclear. If you are buying electricity at a negative rate you are helping out a fossil fuel plant (or if your lucky a nuclear one). > it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Nope. Equipment still has a cost, no matter how many times you ignore it. As for who is fixated, and/or brainwashed. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

by _hypx 3y ago

_aavaa_ 3y ago

The only close mindedness going around is your apperant fixation on Hydrogen as a goal in and of itself, rather than on producing and providng clean energy. You are seeing what you want to see. And what I see is someone showing a complete lack of knowledge about material science. > If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure. The existing natural gas infrastructure will not simply "switch over" because it fundamentally is incapable of safely transporting hydrogen. You need different material properties in your metal to handle hydrogen (see hydrogen embritlement as one reason), to say nothing of the other equipment involved. These cannot be "switched over", they must be completely replaced. This in fact is the thinking that's backwards: continue to think about chemical energy carriers and moving them around in pipes. This made sense when we started with chemicals (fossil fuels), but it makes no sense when our starting point is electricity. Simply store and more that electriicty around. > Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen. > Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production. No it won't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. Further, if you're buying electricity for a negative price, you're getting it from a coal/gas plant which is decidedly not green. Or if you're lucky from a nuclear plant. Very cheap electricity is a necessary condition for cheap green hydrogen, not an incentive for it. Again, cheap is not free, and at the energy requirements needed per kg of H2, even cheap adds up quickly. Further, the equipment to produce, store, and transport it are not cheap, and are certainly not free. > Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction. All together now: the sun shines and wind blows even if you turn off your solar panels and wind turbines. Nothing is wasted. > anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it. Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true. As for the H2 Science Coalition, they clearly are not. They are very clear that hydrogen has it's uses (and its own major decarbonization problems). But that it's simply very poorly suited to be "an energy carrier".

_hypx 3y ago
How is that any different than anyone with an obsession with green energy? In reality, it is a necessary component of a sustainable society. Something that you failed to realize. What I know is that your position on hydrogen is pure FUD. I know as a matter of fact that your views on the material science side of things are false. You can send hydrogen via natural gas pipelines. It is fully possible to "switch over." At worst, you will have to line the insides with some kind of coating: https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2023-02/Hydrogen%20Gas_White%20Paper%202023.pdf https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2023-02/Hyd... And yet a pipeline is 10x cheaper than sending electricity. As it turns, basic physics does not change no matter how strongly you describe it as "backwards": https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... You are continuing to deny reality with this post: If you are talking about massive overprovisioning, then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. And you can beat around the bush all you want; it does not change the fact that practically free electricity is happening right now, and it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Again, the only necessary resource is water. The cost floor is far lower than any other idea you can conceive of. And since it is cheaper to store and move hydrogen around that electricity, you will eventually abandon an all electricity-based solution in favor of one that moves energy around with hydrogen. > Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true. No one is fixated on hydrogen. It is the anti-hydrogen Luddites that are fixated on stopping it. This inevitably causes a conflict where rational and non-brainwashed people come out and say "No, you really do have to accept this that this is a necessary part of the solution."
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  There's little point of rehashing things a 6th time, but I'll leave this for people who come back later and ever read this: > then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. Solar and wind do not have negative electricity rates. Negative electricity rates are caused by a fixed/hard to ramp down source (nuclear/coal/gas) whose electricity is not needed. These plant cannot be turned on and off quickly ebnough to not produce this excess electricity, and because the grid must remain balanced (all the production must be immediately met by demand) they have to pay people to take the electricity off their hands because it's the cheapest option for them. Solar and wind you can simply turn off, they do not have to pay peopel to take excess energy off their hands since they can simply choose not to make it. Adding solar and wind will cause negative rates to occur, but it is not the solar and wind that are paying those negative values, it is the gas/coal/nuclear. If you are buying electricity at a negative rate you are helping out a fossil fuel plant (or if your lucky a nuclear one). > it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Nope. Equipment still has a cost, no matter how many times you ignore it. As for who is fixated, and/or brainwashed. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.