Electric vehicles can now power your home for three days. MAGA wets panties

Into the Night said:
Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
I don't need to prove a negative. YOU must support your argument. Answer the question put to you. Don't evade.
Click to expand...

If you don't know what 'natural deterioration' is, that's your problem.

The burden is on you to prove your claim that landfill liners will last forever. . Your assertion is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Celticguy said:
Clearly we do not have a hydrogen solution in hand at present but they are exploring a number of ideas that address the various problems.

If we have higher profile concerns working on it maybe solutions come more quickly.
Click to expand...

Extracting hydrogen is energy intensive, so the source and how it’s done both matter. Currently, about 96% of the world’s hydrogen comes from coal (brown) and gas (grey), with the rest created from nuclear (pink) and renewable sources like hydro, wind and solar. Production of both grey and brown hydrogen release carbon dioxide (CO2) and unburnt fugitive methane into the atmosphere. This super-polluting hydrogen is what’s currently used as the chemical base for synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, plastics and steel among other industries.
Blue hydrogen is what the fossil fuel industry is most invested in, as it still comes from gas but ostensibly the CO2 would be captured and stored underground. The industry claims to have the technology to capture 80-90% of CO2, but in reality, it’s closer to 12% when every stage of the energy-intensive process is evaluated, according to a peer-reviewed study by scientists at Cornell University published in 2021. For sure better than nothing, but methane emissions, which warm the planet faster than CO2, would actually be higher than for grey hydrogen because of the additional gas needed to power the carbon capture, and likely upstream leakage. Notably, the term clean hydrogen was coined by the fossil fuel industry a few months after the seminal Cornell study found that blue hydrogen has a substantially larger greenhouse gas footprint than burning gas, coal or diesel oil for heating.
Green hydrogen is extracted from water by electrolysis – using electricity generated by renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydro). Climate experts (without links to fossil fuels) say green hydrogen can only be green if new renewable sources are constructed to power hydrogen production – rather than drawing on the current grid and questionable carbon accounting schemes. The industry disagrees: “Strict additionality rules requiring electrolytic hydrogen to be powered by new renewable energy is not practical, especially in the early years, and will severely limit the development of hydrogen projects,” said BP America.
“There may be some small role in truly green hydrogen in a decarbonised future, but this is largely a marketing creation by the oil and gas industry that has been hugely overhyped,” said Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, a co-author of the paper on blue hydrogen.
What’s at stake?
In addition to $26bn in direct financing for so-called hydrogen hubs and demo projects, another $100bn or so in uncapped tax credits could be paid out over the next few decades, so lots and lots of taxpayers’ money. Fossil fuel companies are also using hydrogen to justify building more pipelines, claiming that this infrastructure can be used for “clean hydrogen” in the future. But hydrogen is a highly flammable and corrosive element, and it would be costly to repurpose oil and gas infrastructure to make it safe for hydrogen. And while hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas, it is not harmless. It aggravates some greenhouse gases, for instance causing methane to stay in the atmosphere for longer.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Extracting hydrogen is energy intensive, so the source and how it’s done both matter. Currently, about 96% of the world’s hydrogen comes from coal (brown) and gas (grey), with the rest created from nuclear (pink) and renewable sources like hydro, wind and solar. Production of both grey and brown hydrogen release carbon dioxide (CO2) and unburnt fugitive methane into the atmosphere. This super-polluting hydrogen is what’s currently used as the chemical base for synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, plastics and steel among other industries.
Blue hydrogen is what the fossil fuel industry is most invested in, as it still comes from gas but ostensibly the CO2 would be captured and stored underground. The industry claims to have the technology to capture 80-90% of CO2, but in reality, it’s closer to 12% when every stage of the energy-intensive process is evaluated, according to a peer-reviewed study by scientists at Cornell University published in 2021. For sure better than nothing, but methane emissions, which warm the planet faster than CO2, would actually be higher than for grey hydrogen because of the additional gas needed to power the carbon capture, and likely upstream leakage. Notably, the term clean hydrogen was coined by the fossil fuel industry a few months after the seminal Cornell study found that blue hydrogen has a substantially larger greenhouse gas footprint than burning gas, coal or diesel oil for heating.
Green hydrogen is extracted from water by electrolysis – using electricity generated by renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydro). Climate experts (without links to fossil fuels) say green hydrogen can only be green if new renewable sources are constructed to power hydrogen production – rather than drawing on the current grid and questionable carbon accounting schemes. The industry disagrees: “Strict additionality rules requiring electrolytic hydrogen to be powered by new renewable energy is not practical, especially in the early years, and will severely limit the development of hydrogen projects,” said BP America.
“There may be some small role in truly green hydrogen in a decarbonised future, but this is largely a marketing creation by the oil and gas industry that has been hugely overhyped,” said Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, a co-author of the paper on blue hydrogen.
What’s at stake?
In addition to $26bn in direct financing for so-called hydrogen hubs and demo projects, another $100bn or so in uncapped tax credits could be paid out over the next few decades, so lots and lots of taxpayers’ money. Fossil fuel companies are also using hydrogen to justify building more pipelines, claiming that this infrastructure can be used for “clean hydrogen” in the future. But hydrogen is a highly flammable and corrosive element, and it would be costly to repurpose oil and gas infrastructure to make it safe for hydrogen. And while hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas, it is not harmless. It aggravates some greenhouse gases, for instance causing methane to stay in the atmosphere for longer.
Click to expand...

As I noted, we are not at a place with hydrogen where the solution is in hand but some great work is underway. The smart money is looking that way.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Extracting hydrogen is energy intensive, so the source and how it’s done both matter. Currently, about 96% of the world’s hydrogen comes from coal (brown) and gas (grey), with the rest created from nuclear (pink) and renewable sources like hydro, wind and solar. Production of both grey and brown hydrogen release carbon dioxide (CO2) and unburnt fugitive methane into the atmosphere. This super-polluting hydrogen is what’s currently used as the chemical base for synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, plastics and steel among other industries.
Blue hydrogen is what the fossil fuel industry is most invested in, as it still comes from gas but ostensibly the CO2 would be captured and stored underground. The industry claims to have the technology to capture 80-90% of CO2, but in reality, it’s closer to 12% when every stage of the energy-intensive process is evaluated, according to a peer-reviewed study by scientists at Cornell University published in 2021. For sure better than nothing, but methane emissions, which warm the planet faster than CO2, would actually be higher than for grey hydrogen because of the additional gas needed to power the carbon capture, and likely upstream leakage. Notably, the term clean hydrogen was coined by the fossil fuel industry a few months after the seminal Cornell study found that blue hydrogen has a substantially larger greenhouse gas footprint than burning gas, coal or diesel oil for heating.
Green hydrogen is extracted from water by electrolysis – using electricity generated by renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydro). Climate experts (without links to fossil fuels) say green hydrogen can only be green if new renewable sources are constructed to power hydrogen production – rather than drawing on the current grid and questionable carbon accounting schemes. The industry disagrees: “Strict additionality rules requiring electrolytic hydrogen to be powered by new renewable energy is not practical, especially in the early years, and will severely limit the development of hydrogen projects,” said BP America.
“There may be some small role in truly green hydrogen in a decarbonised future, but this is largely a marketing creation by the oil and gas industry that has been hugely overhyped,” said Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, a co-author of the paper on blue hydrogen.
What’s at stake?
In addition to $26bn in direct financing for so-called hydrogen hubs and demo projects, another $100bn or so in uncapped tax credits could be paid out over the next few decades, so lots and lots of taxpayers’ money. Fossil fuel companies are also using hydrogen to justify building more pipelines, claiming that this infrastructure can be used for “clean hydrogen” in the future. But hydrogen is a highly flammable and corrosive element, and it would be costly to repurpose oil and gas infrastructure to make it safe for hydrogen. And while hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas, it is not harmless. It aggravates some greenhouse gases, for instance causing methane to stay in the atmosphere for longer.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' except in your religion. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are STILL ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer substance with a colder one.
 
Celticguy said:
As I noted, we are not at a place with hydrogen where the solution is in hand but some great work is underway. The smart money is looking that way.
Click to expand...

Money has no intelligence. It is neither smart nor stupid. You cannot change the laws of physics by throwing money at it.
 
Celticguy said:
As I noted, we are not at a place with hydrogen where the solution is in hand but some great work is underway. The smart money is looking that way.
Click to expand...

I don't see any 'smart money' going to hydrogen technology. I see it all going to EV technology. The 'smart money' won't be flowing to Hydrogen technology until they make it practical. They have yet to do that and maybe never will.

Go buy an EV, ColicGuy. You'll love it.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Absolutely. Hydrogen was just the ticket for the HINDENBURG.
Click to expand...

The Hindenburg did not catch fire because of hydrogen. It didn't burn because of hydrogen. It burned because it crashed into the landing tower in a storm and the electrical discharge set the envelope on fire. As soon as the envelope was breached, the hydrogen went up as it escaped.
The rest of the envelope burned (it was a stick frame covered in fabric and dope, highly flammable) and the whole mess crashed onto people below (those in the gondola and the landing crew, killing them.

Yes, it was a spectacular accident. The cause was:
* the weather
* dope and fabric envelope (with powdered aluminum mixed in the dope, no less!).
* failure to properly ground the aircraft during the landing sequence.

After the Hindenburg, the great Zeppelins still sailed the skies, but what really put them out of business was the airplane, now advanced enough for airline use, and a lot faster.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
I don't see any 'smart money' going to hydrogen technology. I see it all going to EV technology. The 'smart money' won't be flowing to Hydrogen technology until they make it practical. They have yet to do that and maybe never will.

Go buy an EV, ColicGuy. You'll love it.
Click to expand...

Neither is a good investment. Investing in government subsidies is too volatile.
 
Into the Night said:
Neither is a good investment. Investing in government subsidies is too volatile.
Click to expand...

The investments are coming from businesses, not government subsidies. Just look at all the car manufacturers who are making EVs now.
Give me a major car manufacurer who ISN'T making an EV model now?

I rest my case.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
The investments are coming from businesses, not government subsidies. Just look at all the car manufacturers who are making EVs now.
Give me a major car manufacurer who ISN'T making an EV model now?

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

The 'investments' are into government subsidies. Reversal fallacy.
Toyota (the largest manufacturer or cars) is getting out of the EV business. They already announced it.
Subaru does not make EVs.

Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs. The only reason they are there is because of government subsidies and mandates.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
I don't see any 'smart money' going to hydrogen technology. I see it all going to EV technology. The 'smart money' won't be flowing to Hydrogen technology until they make it practical. They have yet to do that and maybe never will.

Go buy an EV, ColicGuy. You'll love it.
Click to expand...

People seem to think Elon Musk is smart and he's doing it. And he's not alone. Toyota and many other vehicle makers are as well.

You see what you look for.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the case of the radical Left they are demanding the laws of physics and nature change to fit their dogma...
Click to expand...

not sure I'd put night in the radical left column.

he's not wrong to acknowledge physics etc, that has to be addressed.

pure hydrogen is not a viable choice though its the easiest (remember the Hindenburg ?). but they are developing alternatives that address the challenges.

lots of smart people working on it (without mountains of govt money) but making great progress none the less.

EVs are a satisfactory solution for some transportation uses but not all and they never will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top