no, not at all.
but the consumer will decide this one.
that and the fact that the electrical grid cannot support EVs.
Spain shows the way on green hydrogen
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
no, not at all.
but the consumer will decide this one.
that and the fact that the electrical grid cannot support EVs.
Since when have leftists let reality stop them?
ExpressLane
Verified User
I have always wondered why they didn't use electrolysis to generate hydrogen and use the hydrogen to fire thermal generation for backup when the wind did not blow.
they can keep extending the EV kickbacks and EVs can make sense for commuter/suburban sorts of use.
But those Kenworths and Freightliners, construction/farming equipment and even all those pickups and such require something better.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes indeed, trains, planes, buses and trucks should be powered with hydrogen and/or ammonia.
Or, alternatively, the rendered fat of millions of leftists.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
A tempting solution I must admit.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, that would be YOU that doesn't understand it.
CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. When it does, that photon is destroyed and the energy it contained is converted into thermal energy. It's just another way for the warmer surface to heat the atmosphere. The warmer surface LOSES that energy (cooling it), and the CO2 molecule gains it.
You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface...ever.
No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.
Into the Night
Verified User
I have already listed the issues.
Into the Night
Verified User
The truckers won't go for it. Diesel is far more effective a fuel for trucks. It produces the horsepower on demand as needed to climb those mountain passes with a full load.
Into the Night
Verified User
Each time you convert from one form of energy to another, there is a loss of available energy, as some is always lost to waste heat during conversion. Further, to use wind to generate hydrogen to cover those times when the wind isn't blowing means that power is NOT available for anything else when the wind is blowing. In other words, you must add MORE wind generators just to power the ballasting system (hydrogen generation in this case).
Into the Night
Verified User
Not possible or practical.
Trains need lots of power for the locomotive. The current designs use diesel fuel to power generators to power the traction wheels. Neither hydrogen nor ammonia have the BTU that diesel fuel has (pound for pound).
Aircraft need lots of power just to get into the air (so do birds). Birds get the energy they need by eating high energy foods (seeds, bugs, eggs, and even other birds!). Only two species can get away with eating grass, and they have to eat LOTS of grass. A goose eats lots of grass, digests it only a little, and poops the rest out all the way. This keeps the bird light enough to fly. A bird in New Zealand, known as the cowbird, actually has four stomachs like a cow. When it eats, it is too heavy to fly. Even after most is digested and pooped out, the bird flies like a lumbering cargo plane.
Aircraft use two types of fuel: gasoline, which has the highest BTU per given volume, and kerosene, which has the highest BTU by weight.
Buses are typically run by cities. They are not interested in efficiency.
Trucks haul heavy loads long distances. These roads go up hill and down dale. They cross high mountain passes. They MUST have a lot of power on demand. That means diesel.
Farm equipment has to work for a living, usually out away from service areas for the whole day and sometimes for 24/7 during harvest time. They must be able to drive large machinery, lift heavy loads, dig in the thick soil, and move rocks and trees. That means diesel again.
You don't get to choose what energy source or fuel people want to buy. You are not the king.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yeh Daimler, Volvo, Nikola, Cummins are fools and you're possessed with far greater knowledge.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Solar is more practical, why is why Australia, Saudi Arabia, Namibia and Spain are about to become huge in producing green hydrogen.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yup.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, it isn't. Solar power is the most expensive method of generating electricity there is. Hydrogen is a colorless gas.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Not if it's used to power PEM electrolysers and produce green hydrogen. Australia, Saudi Arabia, Namibia and Spain are ideal to do just that.
Hydrogen generation could become $ 1 trillion market: Goldman Sachs
Hydrogen has an important role to play in any transition to net-zero and its generation could develop into a market worth over $ 1 trillion a year, according to Goldman Sachs.
“If we want to go to net-zero we can’t do it just through renewable power,” Michele DellaVigna, the bank’s commodity equity business unit leader for the EMEA region, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” earlier this week.
“We need something that takes today’s role of natural gas, especially to manage seasonality and intermittency, and that is hydrogen.”
Hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in a wide range of industries.
“It’s a very powerful molecule,” DellaVigna said. “We can use it for heavy transport, we can use it for heating, and we can use it for heavy industry.”
The key, he argued, was to “produce it without CO2 emissions. And that’s why we talk about green, we talk about blue hydrogen.”
Described by the International Energy Agency as a “versatile energy carrier,” hydrogen can be produced in a number of ways. One method includes using electrolysis, with an electric current splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen.
If the electricity used in this process comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar then some call it green or renewable hydrogen.
Blue hydrogen refers to hydrogen produced using natural gas – a fossil fuel – with the CO2 emissions generated during the process captured and stored. There has been a charged debate around the role blue hydrogen can play in the decarbonization of society.
“Whether we do it with electrolysis or we do it with carbon capture, we need to generate hydrogen in a clean way,” DellaVigna said.
“And once we have it, I think we have a solution that could become, one day, at least 15% of the global energy markets which means it will be … over a trillion dollar market per year.”
https://akhbarchi.com/hydrogen-generation-could-become-1-trillion-market-goldman-sachs/
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night said:
Hydrogen is a colorless gas. It is not green. Using the most expensive method of producing electricity to convert it to hydrogen is even MORE expensive. As always, there is loss during conversion.
Why? Because they are dictatorships or oligarchies?
Speculation.
You already said this. Speculation.
Obviously, you worship Michele.
What's wrong with natural gas? It's MUCH cheaper than hydrogen and contains more energy in the molecule.
Most hydrogen today is used for ammonia production. See the Haber-Bosch process.
Not particularly. It consumes a lot of space for the energy it has. DellaVigna is wrong.
Not practical. I've already discussed why.
What's wrong with CO2?
Hydrogen is colorless.
You make it sound like a disease!
Energy isn't free.
Hydrogen is colorless. I call it very expensive hydrogen.
Hydrogen is colorless. Natural gas is not a fossil nor does it come from fossils. It is a renewable source of energy. You can get it from oil wells, composting sites (or landfill sites), swamps, or just make it yourself. See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The Earth is a natural Fischer-Tropsche reactor. Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. They do not come from fossils. They are not fossils. Fossils don't burn.
Why would you do that? What's wrong with CO2?
Why would you want to get rid of carbon? Why would you want to get rid of carbon dioxide? CO2 is a necessary and naturally occurring gas for life on Earth to exist. Carbon is also necessary for life.
So DellaVigna thinks carbon is 'unclean'. This is a religious statement. Sure, carbon can be sooty, but it's easy to clean off your hands. Carbon dioxide is a gas at normal temperatures. There is nothing to clean off.
Speculation.
You really seem to be ignoring chemistry. You should probably at least go study up on Gibbs' law, oxy-reduction reaction chemistry, equilibria, and the theories of Heitler and London. You should also stop conflating carbon with carbon dioxide. They are two completely different substances with completely different properties.
Further, you should study up on the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Hydrogen is a colorless gas. It is not green. Using the most expensive method of producing electricity to convert it to hydrogen is even MORE expensive. As always, there is loss during conversion.
Why? Because they are dictatorships or oligarchies?
Speculation.
You already said this. Speculation.
Obviously, you worship Michele.
What's wrong with natural gas? It's MUCH cheaper than hydrogen and contains more energy in the molecule.
Most hydrogen today is used for ammonia production. See the Haber-Bosch process.
Not particularly. It consumes a lot of space for the energy it has. DellaVigna is wrong.
Not practical. I've already discussed why.
What's wrong with CO2?
Hydrogen is colorless.
You make it sound like a disease!
Energy isn't free.
Hydrogen is colorless. I call it very expensive hydrogen.
Hydrogen is colorless. Natural gas is not a fossil nor does it come from fossils. It is a renewable source of energy. You can get it from oil wells, composting sites (or landfill sites), swamps, or just make it yourself. See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The Earth is a natural Fischer-Tropsche reactor. Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. They do not come from fossils. They are not fossils. Fossils don't burn.
Why would you do that? What's wrong with CO2?
Why would you want to get rid of carbon? Why would you want to get rid of carbon dioxide? CO2 is a necessary and naturally occurring gas for life on Earth to exist. Carbon is also necessary for life.
So DellaVigna thinks carbon is 'unclean'. This is a religious statement. Sure, carbon can be sooty, but it's easy to clean off your hands. Carbon dioxide is a gas at normal temperatures. There is nothing to clean off.
Speculation.
You really seem to be ignoring chemistry. You should probably at least go study up on Gibbs' law, oxy-reduction reaction chemistry, equilibria, and the theories of Heitler and London. You should also stop conflating carbon with carbon dioxide. They are two completely different substances with completely different properties.
Further, you should study up on the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws.
Right, I have a degree in chemistry. There is no such thing as Gibb's Law so stop bullshitting, are you talking about Gibbs free energy which combines enthalpy and entropy into a single value?
You do like to prove you are stupid when it comes to actual facts.
According to the US Department of Energy -
1 kg of hydrogen has the same energy content as
1 gallon (3.2 kg) of gasoline.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy08/43061.pdf
lower heating value
hydrogen - 52,217 btu/lb
Diesel fuel - 18,394 btu/lb