Victoria warned against ‘very inefficient’ hydrogen buses after trial announced
Victoria warned against ‘very inefficient’ hydrogen buses after trial announced
Cambridge professor says grey hydrogen buses are expensive, ‘destructive’ and not a true zero-emissions solution
You're viewing a single thread.
I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical. That way, it consumes funding and interest that would otherwise be spent on electrification, without threatening the dominance of fossils.
The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam.
Luckily, it turns out it's possible to just start manufacturing batteries almost anywhere. You can't really get lock-in where you're stuck with their product like with oil and gas.
Wrong. you are totally stuck with the metal requirements needed for those batteries. It is just another dependency. Meanwhile, the alternative such as hydrogen has no such dependencies.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki @AllNewTypeFace wrote: "I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical."
To which you replied: "The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries."
But the fossil fuel industry's support for hydrogen and biomethane isn't just some myth cooked up by battery producers.
And you don't need to take my word on that. Here's ExxonMobil on hydrogen:
"Hydrogen produces zero greenhouse gas emissions at its point of use. It's also versatile - suitable for power generation, trucking, and heat-intensive industries like steel and chemicals. We are scaling up production of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce CO2 emissions in our own facilities, and helping others do the same... Natural gas is comprised largely of methane (CH4) and can be turned into hydrogen through a reforming process."
Source: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-industrial-solutions/hydrogen
Here's what Australian Gas Networks has to say:
"Australian Gas Networks and the Australian gas sector has a clear vision for a low carbon future using renewable gases such as hydrogen and biomethane. We know we need to deliver on this vision to help Australia meet national and statebased emissions reductions targets, whilst also maintaining the reliability of supply at lowest cost to our customers.
"Hydrogen Park South Australia and Hydrogen Park Gladstone will demonstrate how we can use the existing gas network to deliver blended gas to customers - the Australian Hydrogen Centre (AHC) is the next step in our journey, delivering feasibility studies on blending 10% renewable hydrogen into towns and cities, and plans for a 100% renewable gas future."
Source: https://www.australiangasnetworks.com.au/australian-hydrogen-centre
Here's Gas Energy Australia, a lobby group that represents LNG gas producers:
"We strongly support the inclusion of hydrogen and biomethane in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Further expanding the way displacement is credited under the ERF to include the full array of emerging renewable gases to replace fossil fuels, would enable the Australian gas industry to make a profound contribution to reducing emissions."
Source: https://www.gasenergyaus.au/about/aims.html
I can give you more examples, including from submissions to government inquires, but this post is getting too long as it is.
No-one is disputing that green hydrogen has an important role to play in decarbonisation.
But.
When oil & gas firms, and their lobbyists, start touting hydrogen, then people will and should ask questions. And no, that's not just battery manufacturers.
There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen. It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels. And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy.
What you're doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. A claim with so many illogical leaps of faiths that it is incoherent. Even wind and solar would be scams in that worldview, since fossil fuel companies spend something on those technologies.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki
"There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."
The oil and gas industry routinely cites the potential of hydrogen and biomethane as substitutes for oil and methane gas, including in submissions to government inquires.
Take a look at any of the submissions to Victoria's inquiry from an oil or gas industry group.
Almost every single one, including the submission from Exxon-Mobil, cites hydrogen and biomethane as their preferred long-term options: https://engage.vic.gov.au/help-us-build-victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap
And going back to the original post, the grey hydrogen to be used in Victoria's bus trial is not exactly an emissions-free fuel source.
"It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels."
Because the oil and gas industry knows the prospect of hydrogen is effective at delaying the replacement of gas appliances with electric ones.
"And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy."
Hydrogen that's produced with methane gas or coal — what Exxon-Mobil is producing — is not green energy.
"What you're doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. [Snip]"
Again, green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.
But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.
Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial.
Elsewhere in this thread, you claimed any criticism of hydrogen came from the battery industry or the fossil fuel industry. You have presented nothing to back up that assertion.
To the contrary, the Australian oil and gas industry regularly cites hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid the transition from gas to electric renewable alternatives.
As yet another example, here's Energy Networks Australia's Gas Vision 2050 policy statement. Hydrogen is right there on the front page:
"Since Energy Networks Australia and our industry partners launched Gas Vision 2050 two years ago, the industry has invested in research and development, policy analysis and pilot projects to demonstrate these new technologies, with a focus on the role of hydrogen."
https://www.energynetworks.com.au/projects/gas-vision-2050/
I've cited multiple examples of where the oil and gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.
Do you have any concrete examples to back up your assertion that: "The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam"?
This is just Gish gallop. Please shut up. If you use your style of rhetoric, wind, solar and even battery manufacturing are just a scam by the oil companies. This is pure gibberish. Volume of bullshit doesn’t make for a coherent argument.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki I'm seeing some big claims from you that "nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry."
I'm seeing strawman arguments and deflections from you.
But nothing to back up your claims.
- You claimed: "The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam."
Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?
A link to an article?
Anything?
- You claimed: "There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."
I've provided you with multiple examples of where the Australian gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.
You don't have to take my word for it. I've provided links.
Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?
A link to a news article?
Some research?
An academic paper?
Anything at all?
- You claim: "You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam."
That's clearly not what I, or anyone else in this thread, is arguing.
Once again, here's my position on hydrogen:
"Green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.
"But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.
"Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial."
It seems to me you're constructing strawman arguments and deflections, because you don't have a strong counter-argument.
Which brings us back to the point you're deflecting from...
- You claim "nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry."
If you have some evidence of that, I'd love to see it.
A link to a news article?
Some research?
An academic paper?
Anything at all?
It literally takes one company to serious invest in green hydrogen as an environmentally friendly solution to debunk your entire conspiracy theory. Which obvious has been proven long ago.
Again, you're using Gish gallop. It's utter bullshit. It's not even worth anyone's time to try an debunk. The better move is to flag you as a corporate stooge and a dishonest liar and ignore you from the rest of the conversation.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki "The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam."
Citation needed.
"There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."
Citation needed.
And again.
Do you have anything to back up your core claims?
Link please.
You can extract lithium from ocean water, you know? Nothing else in an LFP battery is rare, and we've got sodium batteries starting to roll out.
You can also extract hydrogen from water. Except now it's not an insanely impractical idea. Sodium batteries haven't been invented yet, and will have a much lower energy density.
I mean... you can order some right now if you want. Their energy density isn't that bad.
They're in the production ramp phase, not the hoping for future technology phase like hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen storage.
The link is dead.
You have an inverted view of reality. Hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. Your idea don’t exist outside of science projects and underwhelming early demonstration versions.
I just clicked it and it works. There's a bunch of sodium ion batteries for sale.
The current fuel cells that waste most of the energy and are manufactured in very small numbers for pilot programs are exactly what I'd describe as underwhelming early demonstration versions.
Now it is working.
But it doesn't matter. Those are hoax products. None of them exist in the real world. You can't actually buy them, or they are secretly some other type of battery. No one has actually seen a working sodium-ion battery in public.
Fuel cells are already in mass production. Again, you are simply living in the early 2000s on this subject. You are wildly outdated on your knowledge.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. That’s why green hydrogen still represents less than a tenth of a percent of global hydrogen production. That’s why there are only more than three hundred and seventy plug in battery vehicles for every hydrogen one, to say nothing of hundred year old green technology like Vancouvers trollybuses.
That’s why for every watt of power a hydrogen fuel cell outputs you only needed 2.3 times as many watts to power it, as compared to batteries which even after transmission and inverting losses require a whole 1.15 watts of input for every watt of output./s
Hydrogen fuel cells are at best, a way for Shell and Chevron to stay relevant. More likely, a way to eat large quantities of money on tech demonstrators instead of proven, off the shelf replacement technologies like overhead wires or batteries.
There are already, largely but not entirely overblown, concerns over how we can build enough electrical generation capacity to make up for eliminating oil and gas. You would need to more than double that new capacity to make hydrogen work. It may have a place in industrial applications, but transport is a dead end. We need solutions now, not expensive tech demos from startups.
Funny, because you can replace "fuel cells" with "solar cells" and you would've nearly mirrored the anti-solar power rhetoric of a decade ago.
What you're doing is blatant Ludditism. It is closer to being a climate change denier tactic than anything honest.
It’s funny, your quoting BP and Shell about climate change while comparing me a denier. You could disprove the solar cell argument a decade ago, but yon haven’t even bothered to try to defend hydrogen, just continuing with personal attacks on everyone vaguely critical of the oil companies magic solution.
It also can partly re-use natural gas infrastructure, allowing them to exploit existing capital.
@WaterWaiver @AllNewTypeFace There's a perception that we could just reuse existing methane gas (i.e. "natural gas") infrastructure for hydrogen. But often that just isn't the case:
"The pipelines that transport hydrogen are made of the same basic material as most of those built for natural gas: steel. But hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane, the main component in natural gas. In fact, hydrogen is the smallest molecule on Earth. Its size means it can squeeze into tiny spaces in certain steel alloys in a way that natural gas cannot. That can cause “embrittlement,” making the metal more likely to crack or corrode. Hydrogen molecules are also much more likely to leak from valves, seals, and other connection points on pipelines (which risks undermining green hydrogen’s climate benefits). And hydrogen is transported in a more pressurized state than natural gas, which puts more stress on the pipeline carrying it.
"Rather than transporting 100 percent hydrogen, many companies are now testing whether they can blend hydrogen with natural gas for transport in existing pipelines. In a study released last summer, the California Public Utility Commission found that up to 5 percent hydrogen blended with natural gas appears safe, but higher percentages could lead to embrittlement or a greater chance of pipeline leaks. Internationally, France places the highest cap on hydrogen blending, at 6 percent, according to the International Energy Agency (Germany allows blending at 8 percent under certain conditions)."
If the aim is to reach net zero emissions by 2050, a 90% or 95% methane to 10% or 5% hydrogen gas blend just isn't that useful for reaching that goal.
(And that's assuming the hydrogen is green hydrogen as well.)
And if a lot of your infrastructure has to be retrofitted anyway, electrification plus renewables plus storage makes a lot more sense in many cases.
There are still use cases where green hydrogen will be useful — international long-haul flights, rockets, some industrial processes, etc. But it's not the best solution in most cases.
#ClimateChange #hydrogen #gas #NetZero #electrification #transport
You're just spreading propaganda against hydrogen. It is fundamental to a zero emissions society. It is even necessary to get the grid to zero emissions. Nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry.
Hydrogen is essential, but we need it for the chemical industry, steelmaking, etc. Using hydrogen as an incredibly expensive and inefficient battery by turning it back into electricity is not the future.
Yes, that's the point. The problem of batteries is that you need to mine a vast amount of raw materials for them. So it doesn't even matter how much "better" they are. It is simply not an answer no matter what.