"limitless" hydrogen under our feet

[Jam2Day]

The point of the article is that this is naturally occurring hydrogen which can be extracted from the ground - which is known as white hydrogen. There is no electrolysis used.

When people propose using electrolysis to create hydrogen as a replacement for carbon fuels they generally mean by using electricity produced from some other renewable sources to power the electrolysis - this is known as green hydrogen. This white hydrogen though if it exists in large quantities as the article suggests and can be easily extracted would do away with the need to produce lots of green hydrogen.

As I understand the green hydrogen lobby, whom I feel are challenged in their views on energy for transport, the idea is to create not hydrogen alone but an e-fuel hydrocarbon that would replace petrol and be far easier to handle than hydrogen and would be used to allow folk to continue to drive combustion engined vehicles that have efficiencies of less than 30% rather than electric vehicles that have efficiencies of well over 80%. Depending upon how the green hydrogen is made the efficiency of production is low or very low, leading to a ultra low overall system efficiencies. But this does not deter petrol heads and for example Harry's garage youtube channel and JCB are both great enthusiasts for e-fuels and even direct green hydrogen use for transportation and various heavy plant equipment. These folk argue that electricity can never be used for heavy machines and Bill Gates argued that this included 18 wheeler wagons, but the Tesla semi seems to be saying this is not true.

Regards,

In the context of your comments regarding the 'green lobby', call me a cynic, but I believe much of the babel we here about the planet is politically motivated, sad to say.

[XFool]

In the context of your comments regarding the 'green lobby', call me a cynic, but I believe much of the babel we here about the planet is politically motivated, sad to say.

Sad to say, but I believe much of the cynical babble we hear criticising climate change etc. is "politically motivated".

[Jam2Day]

In the context of your comments regarding the 'green lobby', call me a cynic, but I believe much of the babel we here about the planet is politically motivated, sad to say.

Sad to say, but I believe much of the cynical babble we hear criticising climate change etc. is "politically motivated".

By the way, I dithered on babble and babel and plumped for babel. I felt the former was a little too patronising

[tjh290633]

Sad to say, but I believe much of the cynical babble we hear criticising climate change etc. is "politically motivated".

And some of it is based on scientific knowledge and experience.

TJH

[XFool]

Sad to say, but I believe much of the cynical babble we hear criticising climate change etc. is "politically motivated".

And some of it is based on scientific knowledge and experience.

But, is that consensus or maverick, "scientific knowledge and experience" ?

[JohnB]

Green hydrogen round-trip energy efficiency from electric sources is around 30%. You are much better using the electricity directly, even if that involves 2500 mile HVDC cables (https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worl ... to-the-uk/), unless you need hydrogen for inter-week load-balancing.

[Leothebear]

Green hydrogen round-trip energy efficiency from electric sources is around 30%. You are much better using the electricity directly, even if that involves 2500 mile HVDC cables (https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worl ... to-the-uk/), unless you need hydrogen for inter-week load-balancing.

Isn't the point being that hydrogen can be captured whereas electricity is captured at best by charging batteries.
Also the inefficiency of creating hydrogen, isn't important when it's done using excess power from a renewable source eg wind power when the grid doesn't need it.

[JohnB]

battery round trip efficiency is much higher, with high cycle counts it's better for periods up to a few days. Hydrogen makes sense if you have the classic cold-calm winter weather that lasts a week. But its a heavy infrastructure investment for occasional use, given you have negawatt alternatives like turning off smelters and cement factories.

[odysseus2000]

Green hydrogen round-trip energy efficiency from electric sources is around 30%. You are much better using the electricity directly, even if that involves 2500 mile HVDC cables (https://electrek.co/2022/04/21/the-worl ... to-the-uk/), unless you need hydrogen for inter-week load-balancing.

Isn't the point being that hydrogen can be captured whereas electricity is captured at best by charging batteries.
Also the inefficiency of creating hydrogen, isn't important when it's done using excess power from a renewable source eg wind power when the grid doesn't need it.

Hydrogen isn’t that useful a store of energy. It is hard to contain, causes brittleness in some steels & is a huge trouble to use. The combustion lobby is far more interested in e-fuels which are hydrocarbon’s made very inefficiently with renewable energy.

I have no idea why anyone would want to keep using combustion when electric cars have multitudes of advantages.

Regards,

[Leothebear]

Isn't the point being that hydrogen can be captured whereas electricity is captured at best by charging batteries.
Also the inefficiency of creating hydrogen, isn't important when it's done using excess power from a renewable source eg wind power when the grid doesn't need it.

Hydrogen isn’t that useful a store of energy. It is hard to contain, causes brittleness in some steels & is a huge trouble to use. The combustion lobby is far more interested in e-fuels which are hydrocarbon’s made very inefficiently with renewable energy.

I have no idea why anyone would want to keep using combustion when electric cars have multitudes of advantages.

Regards,

I'm in unknown territory here but isn't battery production itself an expensive and high energy consumption process?

[odysseus2000]

The climate debate has some similarities to the peak oil debates of the 1970’s.

In both cases there are experts arguing that things are really bad & will get a lot worse with politicians using what ever seems useful for their purposes. One of Prime Minister Thatcher’s arguments against coal was its contribution to climate change.

The peak oil arguments turned out to be baloney, and the expert analysis on climate change might turn out to be similarly wrong, but it might not. The sort of Monte Carlo calculations used are very complex. I have written many for very simple problems in nuclear physics & cosmic rays & even then it is hard to be sure they are right until one has experimental data to compare to. For climate science the time scales are long & the data is not unambiguous, but my experience in the uk is that peak summer temperatures are hotter as expected according to the models, plant seasons are earlier (Black berry already in fruit now rather than in August/September) & there are wild swings through out the year, but those kinds of swings have been going on since records were kept, so only the gradual warming and plant changes seems a potentially reliable indicator.

Then there is the political variance from folk like Trump who are totally disbelievers to folk like Greta Thunberg who regularly predict disaster. Five years ago she said there would be a disaster in 5 years if we did not mend our ways, but we did very little & nothing too serious has so far happened.

As I look at various sectors & energy usage the rational for carrying on like we have seems weak. Irrespective of climate change why should young children have to breathe in polluted air from hydrocarbons like I had to when they could have clean air using modern technology. One argument is that to make things better will cost money & enrich folk who make the new tech & Tesla has been good to me, but the same people do not complain about all the money & taxes that go into fighting wars or the profits of arms industries.

Then there is the chance that climate science is right & that if we don’t reduce co2 then very bad things will happen.

I can not see much rational for continuing as we have been, not least because in the by & by fossil fuels, will become more difficult to find even if we don’t have a climate catastrophe first & we would be better reducing their use. Perhaps of similar importance is that new cleaner technology will provide lots of new jobs & raise the general levels of prosperity & remove some of the geopolitical risk of getting hydro carbons from a few places on the planet such as the Middle East, Russia & the US.

Regards,

[JohnB]

Yes, but technology is making good progress to eliminate rare Cobalt and Nickel, and get cycle times up so they will last 20 years, making their production energy usage less of a factor. You might want different batteries for cars, where energy density is key than for grid load balancing using container parks. As you might expect, its a frenzy of research at the moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compariso ... tery_types

[XFool]

The climate debate has some similarities to the peak oil debates of the 1970’s.

In both cases there are experts arguing that things are really bad & will get a lot worse with politicians using what ever seems useful for their purposes. One of Prime Minister Thatcher’s arguments against coal was its contribution to climate change.

Then there is the political variance from folk like Trump who are totally disbelievers to folk like Greta Thunberg who regularly predict disaster. Five years ago she said there would be a disaster in 5 years if we did not mend our ways, but we did very little & nothing too serious has so far happened.

But this is false and not what Greta Thunberg actually said! The false interpretation/version has been propagated all over the Internet by the "usual suspects". Gresham's Law in action?

What is true is she posted (in my words I don't have the original) in effect: 'If we don't tackle climate change within 5 years, it would mean bad things happening in future.'

But here is an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1009757391515156480

Now, she may have been correct, she may have been wrong. But she didn't post what she in now widely reported to have posted. Can you see why? (And what is the issue with the whole climate change 'debate'?)

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greta-thunberg-deleted-tweet-675395214080

"THE FACTS: Social media users and conservative commentators are taking the climate activist’s 2018 tweet out of context to push the claim that Thunberg is backtracking on a previous stance."

[odysseus2000]

The climate debate has some similarities to the peak oil debates of the 1970’s.

In both cases there are experts arguing that things are really bad & will get a lot worse with politicians using what ever seems useful for their purposes. One of Prime Minister Thatcher’s arguments against coal was its contribution to climate change.

Then there is the political variance from folk like Trump who are totally disbelievers to folk like Greta Thunberg who regularly predict disaster. Five years ago she said there would be a disaster in 5 years if we did not mend our ways, but we did very little & nothing too serious has so far happened.

But this is false and not what Greta Thunberg actually said! The false interpretation/version has been propagated all over the Internet by the "usual suspects". Gresham's Law in action?

What is true is she posted (in my words I don't have the original) in effect: 'If we don't tackle climate change within 5 years, it would mean bad things happening in future.'

But here is an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1009757391515156480

Now, she may have been correct, she may have been wrong. But she didn't post what she in now widely reported to have posted. Can you see why? (And what is the issue with the whole climate change 'debate'?)

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greta-thunberg-deleted-tweet-675395214080

"THE FACTS: Social media users and conservative commentators are taking the climate activist’s 2018 tweet out of context to push the claim that Thunberg is backtracking on a previous stance."

Yes, but the differences is academic. As I posted the world would end in 5 years, in the wayback machine post, the fact that we have not stopped using fossil fuels in five years says the humanity will be in a very bad position and can not now be saved. Is there a real difference?

This is the political problem that folk in positions of importance continue to make claims that are designed to induce fear or complacency: King Charles has since at least 2008 warned that the polar ice caps would melt, President Trump has repeatedly said that climate change is a hoax.

I have no idea if either extreme fear or extreme complacency is right and as far as I can tell there is no scientific way to tell. However, as mentioned before the benefits from doing things seem to outweigh the benefits of doing nothing and so I would prefer that things were done to reduce co2 emissions and/or capture co2.

Regards,

[XFool]

But this is false and not what Greta Thunberg actually said! The false interpretation/version has been propagated all over the Internet by the "usual suspects". Gresham's Law in action?

Yes, but the differences is academic. As I posted the world would end in 5 years, in the wayback machine post, the fact that we have not stopped using fossil fuels in five years says the humanity will be in a very bad position and can not now be saved. Is there a real difference?

I do not think it is "academic". Facts are facts in my book. I'm not disputing your views, just pointing out that this 'well known Greta Thunberg quote' is false, as commonly reported - for political reasons (what else?). Her actual quote can be see via the archive link above. It is almost always misquoted (negatively). The reasons are obvious. You don't have to agree with what she actually said (in quoting somebody else from a published article, which even itself seems to have possibly misquoted its own source)

This is the political problem that folk in positions of importance continue to make claims that are designed to induce fear or complacency: King Charles has since at least 2008 warned that the polar ice caps would melt, President Trump has repeatedly said that climate change is a hoax.

These are not, IMO, symmetric positions: On the one hand Trump, on the other hand... whoever you like!
We know that anything Trump says is BS (well, don't we?) and not an argument for anything, So we only need to concern ourselves with assessing the other side.

I have no idea if either extreme fear or extreme complacency is right and as far as I can tell there is no scientific way to tell.

I'd go with what the science is saying - which ultimately, is what what Greta Thunberg has been saying all along. Despite the political propaganda used against her.

[jaizan]

1 Each year, China alone is opening new coal fired power stations equivalent to the UK electricity output.
Their CO2 emissions per capita are already well above ours.

So I don't entirely see what is the point of screwing up UK energy costs and security, if other industrialised nations are moving in the opposite direction.

The BBC hardly ever mentions this, as their agenda is solely to raise awareness of climate issues and promote renewable energy, without any attempt at balanced and complete reporting.


2 I'm convinced global warming is a major problem. However we have no chance at all of solving it when so many major economies do not even try.


As for limitless hydrogen under our feet, that sounds improbable.

We probably do have limitless geothermal down there, but we're also not looking to exploit that.

Nuclear is near zero carbon. What we need there is some bright people to investigate why the cost isn't falling, as with most other major technologies. (Bright people obviously excludes politicians)

Something like the Severn Barrage would provide a predictable renewable, not correlated with wind. Again, having some bright and non-political types investigate the costs might make sense.

[XFool]

1 Each year, China alone is opening new coal fired power stations equivalent to the UK electricity output.
Their CO2 emissions per capita are already well above ours.

So I don't entirely see what is the point of screwing up UK energy costs and security, if other industrialised nations are moving in the opposite direction.

The BBC hardly ever mentions this, as their agenda is solely to raise awareness of climate issues and promote renewable energy, without any attempt at balanced and complete reporting.

So what would be "balanced and complete reporting" by the BBC? Replays of the late Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation?

There is, IMO, a fundamental intellectual error here. Facts don't need "balancing" by "alternative facts" - a mistake made originally by the BBC when they were operating their "balanced" reporting on climate change, including Lord Lawson. They know better now.

After The Sky At Night on BBC TV I don't expect a contrary, 'balancing' view from a Flat earth believer. After a documentary about the death of the dinosaurs I don't expect to have a Young Earth believer pop up to give the 'alternative' view.

2 I'm convinced global warming is a major problem. However we have no chance at all of solving it when so many major economies do not even try.

OK. But you seemed to be using China as a reason for us not bothering so much.

BTW, I have more than once seem articles reporting on China and climate on the BBC News site.

[JohnB]

China's CO2 emissions are so high partly because we've offshored our manufacturing there. As well as coal, they are storming ahead with renewables. No NIMBYs makes a big difference https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... rgy-leader

The West is hamstrung with a colalition of climate deniers and hair shirt eco warriors not allowing any pragmatic changes to their countries

[Jam2Day]

I have no idea why anyone would want to keep using combustion when electric cars have multitudes of advantages.

Regards,

I think we all agree that electric motors with their torque characteristics and clean properties are hands down the preferred route and have been for a long time. Even those smokey old diesel electric railway units attest to that. However, surely the real problem is battery storage efficiency which is just not sufficiently advanced enough to accomodate most of our daily requirements. They are heavy, bulky and expensive compared with the calorific content in a typical ten gallon tank of fuel.

[odysseus2000]

Xfool
These are not, IMO, symmetric positions: On the one hand Trump, on the other hand... whoever you like!
We know that anything Trump says is BS (well, don't we?) and not an argument for anything, So we only need to concern ourselves with assessing the other side.

No we don't.

There are a number of well respected scientists who don't agree with the co2 argument, but are not vocal due to fear of losing grant money. They have various ideas, many associated with changes in solar output and it is hard to be sure that they are wrong and the co2 arguments are right.

There have been many consensus in science that have proved to be wrong. At one time anyone who mentioned continental drift would be failed in Oxford Geology. I had a contact there who outlined how hostile the vast majority of the community was to the ideas of continental drift and then when the undersea evidence appeared the entire field embraced continental drift. I could cite many other examples.

I have no idea who is right as I don't have data that is unambiguous. Sure the seasons feel to be warmer to me, but there have been quite sudden climate changes before with no obvious explanation, some dramatic like the freezing of the Thames that happened over two centuries between 1600 and 1814:

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/H ... ost-Fairs/

see also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs

In the 1960's fears of a coming ice age were common.

However, I would not be complacent. I would act now in case the climate models of a warm planet are right or too optimistic and the planet warms faster than expected, but I can not argue this course of action with certainty. The co2 models may not be right, either way.

Regards,