Europe's hydrogen revolution: the promise of power without pollution

Homepage | Forums | Topics In Depth | Science and Environment | Europe's hydrogen revolution: the promise of power without pollution

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #256388
      c6330507
      Blocked
      • Total Posts: 59

       

      Image result for Europe Hydrogen

      Euronews.com | Paul Hackett • last updated: 24/01/2020

      Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and offers the game-changing promise of clean power on a mass scale.

      While fuel cell and hydrogen technologies (FCH) have the potential to replace all fossil-based energy, conservative projections estimate FCH will be able to generate 2,250 terawatt hours (TWh) of hydrogen in the European Union by 2050.

      That would supply about a quarter of the bloc’s total annual energy demand. In other words, an eyewatering amount of energy that could fuel 42 million large cars, 1.7 million trucks, around a quarter of a million buses and more than 5,500 trains… snip

      …”Since 2008 we’ve been managing 263 projects for about, public private money, 2 billion euros,” explains FCH JU Executive Director Bart Biebuyck. He adds, “For us now, the logical next step would be to scale up, and for that, we will mainly focus on innovative manufacturing technologies.”.. more: https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/24/europe-s-hydrogen-revolution-the-promise-of-power-without-pollution

      RELATED from The Guardian UK:

      Zero-carbon hydrogen injected into gas grid for first time in groundbreaking UK trial.

      “The 20% H2 & natural gas blend is being used to heat 100 homes & 30 faculty buildings at Keele University in Staffordshire. Unlike natural gas, when H2 is burned it produces heat & water as opposed to C02.”
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/24/hydrogen-uk-gas-grid-keele-university

      Germany’s hydrogen trains are working so well they have ordered 27 more

      Meanwhile, China is mass producing more fuel cell stacks than anywhere else in the world- and making them cheaper every day. Hydrogen bashers said H2 FC stacks could never be mass produced. They were spectacularly WRONG. But amusing.

      ****

      The resident angry hydrogen basher/buffoon will no doubt straggle in here and claim that hydrogen can only be produced with SMR (FALSE) and that anyone posting about H2 is a paid shill (ABSURD), so here’s the standard disclaimer that will now be included in every single H2 post

      (Despite the howling from Fossil Fuel and other Dinosaurs, This Poster is Not Employed by the Hydrogen Industry. Some buffoons are attempting to paint Hydrogen advocates as shills. Their days are numbered. Meanwhile, the GREEN Hydrogen Energy Revolution continues, especially in China – and every single day more people are actually educated about the matter. The Future of Energy is Here, Now.  Comments from ignorant and angry hydrogen bashers will be ignored.)

    • #256402
      ThouArtThat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,901

      @c6330507

      Hi c633….

      Or whatever your name truly is.  Yet again, another Saturday rolls around for the Grifters worker bee Bot to post about the Glories of Hydrogen.  And yet again it is time to set the record straight about Hydrogen.

      Hydrogen is a carrier of energy and not a source.  What does that mean?  Simply stated, it means that it takes Energy from another source to manufacture Hydrogen.  Why is that important?  Simply stated, because energy is lost during the manufacturing process which means Hydrogen is less efficient to use than the source energy used to make it.  What is the source of Energy?  Typically, natural gas is used as part of the Steam Reforming Process.

      But, But the Hydrogen Grifter’s Bot tells me that it will be made with electricity.  Well this is a sleight of hand often used by Grifters and their minions.  They don’t tell the whole truth.  Yes, there are methods for generating Hydrogen from electricity but that process is much less efficient than using natural gas.  In other words, even more energy is lost in the conversion process.  So much so that commercial Hydrogen at scale is made with natural gas.  If it was cheaper to manufacture with electricity, rest assured the capitalists would be using it already.

      But, But why are their plans? The Hydrogen Grifter’s Bot is always showing me official documents and finely crafted marketing materials.  Well if your business model and economic life depended on the continuation of the Global Company Store (aka capitalism), one might be a bit desperate as the age of Fossil Fuels draws to an end.  In other words the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks are looking for something, anything, that they can can control and monetize to keep Global Industrial Civilization running.

      But, But the Hydrogen Grifters tell me it will all be a miraculous future when Hydrogen pours forth from every converted gasoline station and I can continue to drive as  I please.  About the only way that would be possible is if all the Hydrogen is made with electricity from new Nuclear Power Plants.  Why?  Simple.  We will never be able to make enough wind mills and solar panels to power Global Industrial Civilization.  Why, because when the Fossil Fuels run out the feed stocks necessary to manufacture those devices will be gone i.e. rare earth minerals, oil for plastics and resins, sand for SiO2 etc.  Just to replace the electricty generated today with Nuclear sources would require a new Nuclear Plant to be built and commissioned every day between now and 2050.  That number would be even greater if nuclear electricity was used to manufacture Hydrogen.

      But, But, But I don’t want to live if I can’t drive my personal car.  Sorry, Humanities collective future is already writ.  Between Fossil Fuel depletion, consumption-based Climate Change and the depletion of Earth’s natural capital, our present way of life is incompatible with life in general on planet Earth.  We will have to change and that means being realistic about our options moving forward.  Investing trillions in Hydrogen is an extend and pretend strategy that makes the 1% billions under the mistaken belief that Hydrogen technology is a future we should embrace.

      Sooner of later the “Buts” will be meaningless and we will have to come to terms with reality.

      TAT

      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
      - John F. Kennedy

      "In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act."
      - George Orwell

      "They must find it difficult ... Those who have taken authority as the truth,
      Rather than truth as the authority."
      - Gerald Massey

      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
      - Jiddu Krishnamurti

    • #256412
      TheHermit
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 60

      @c6330507

      Allow me to step in here and make one point in defense of the “resident angry hydrogen basher.”  I also get frustrated by his repeated rejection and dismissal of all alternative energy (or so it sometimes seems).

      But like him, I also am frustrated by articles like this, which imply that all we have to do is start “mining” hydrogen, and our global warming woes will be behind us.

      While it is true that hydrogen is the most common element, it is also true that “mining” it is devilishly hard, and expensive.  To “harvest” hydrogen from the environment would likely be cost prohibitive.  So the practical application of hydrogen is to “produce” it through electrolysis, or some other chemical process.  That way, you can “collect” the hydrogen and reuse it to produce energy, such as for transportation, as discussed in this article.

      Now production of hydrogen by electrolysis requires the same amount of energy as you get back when you use it in a fuel cell (ignoring the inevitable, but relatively minor, losses of the cycle).  So really, hydrogen should be viewed as a “battery” to store energy in a portable form, rather than a primary source of energy.

      Now that is not a fatal flaw, because hydrogen can be a very concentrated form of energy, so being able to fill a tank of a car, truck, train, can be a very important step of the process.

      But it is all for nought, environmentally speaking, unless you have a primary production such as wind or solar, which supplies the energy to the electrolysis initially.

      I think hydrogen is fantastic, and will be an important part of future transportation.  But all this is a roundabout way of saying that the second paragraph in this summary is, at least at this point, a flat out lie.

      “While fuel cell and hydrogen technologies (FCH) have the potential to replace all fossil-based energy, conservative projections estimate FCH will be able to generate 2,250 terawatt hours (TWh) of hydrogen in the European Union by 2050.”

      I guess I should also point out that the author of this summary is a technological kindergartner. By his own description, FCH does not “generate” hydrogen, it consumes hydrogen and generates electricity.  That may seem a minor slip, but he doesn’t understand what he is writing about.

      With current technology, hydrogen/fuel cells do not replace fossil-fuel based energy.  We need wind and solar to do that.  Hydrogen/fuel cells replace batteries.  Maybe I am behind the times, and there is a new way of producing  hydrogen that does not require the same amount of energy as it produces.  Let me know if technology has passed me by.

       

      • #256428
        ThouArtThat
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,901

        @thehermit

        Hi hermit,

        I do take exception with this statement – “resident angry hydrogen basher.”  I am neither angry nor a basher.  What I am is a realist about science, technology and our future.  Hence the reason for repeatedly pointing out the flaws in Hydrogen technology as promoted by the Hydrogen Grifters and their Bots.

        As to your point about Fuel Cells; you are correct that they are a replacement for batteries as such.  However your argument that solar and wind will generate enough electricity to run current Global Industrial Society is mistaken.

        At best, wind and solar are being touted as replacing current electrical generation which is only 20% of Global Energy Consumption worldwide.  The remaining 80% of Global Energy Consumption is the direct use of natural resources like Fossil Fuels.  So even if we could produce enough electricity from wind and solar to replace Fossil Fuels for electrical generation it would fall far short of total energy demands worldwide.

        Things gets worse though because wind and solar need Fossil Fuel inputs to manufacture for mining, transport, chemical processing, production and distribution.  And when the Fossil Fuels are depleted those feed stocks run dry and the wind turbines and solar panels can no longer be serviced and replaced.  Add to that all of the CO2 generated during the collected processes puts a lie to the notion that “green energy” is green.  This would also apply to high-tech solutions like Hydrogen production, storage and distribution, all of which does not presently exist at scale.

        Sooner or late we will have to come to terms with facts.  And those facts are simply this.  We will never be able to run current Western Industrial Society at scale with wind turbines and solar panels alone.  About the only way that would  be remotely feasible is with Nuclear, wind and solar.  But even then, once the Fossil Fuels run dry, we are in a world of energy hurt and no amount of slick Hydrogen marketing propaganda will change that.

        TAT

        "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
        - John F. Kennedy

        "In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act."
        - George Orwell

        "They must find it difficult ... Those who have taken authority as the truth,
        Rather than truth as the authority."
        - Gerald Massey

        "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
        - Jiddu Krishnamurti

        • #256456
          TheHermit
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 60

          @thouartthat

          Thank you for the reply, TAT.

          I didn’t mean to offend on the “resident angry hydrogen basher.”  I was just quoting the original poster, but I could/should have avoided that.

          But if you reread my reply, I don’t think I made an ” argument that solar and wind will generate enough electricity to run current Global Industrial Society.”  I said that if you want “green” hydrogen, you will need to use wind or solar as the primary source, not current fossil fuel generation.  I guess I wasn’t as clear as I meant to be.

          I agree we are not going to be able to maintain “Western Industrial Society at scale” but I think that is because other things, like declining food production due to drying up of aquifers,  will catch up to us pretty quickly now.

          But I believe that anything we can do, like increasing use of wind and solar, and even development of hydrogen as portable energy storage for use in transportation, will help.  I don’t think that just because things look exceedingly grim for the human race (and much other life on earth) is a reason to stop trying.

          I don’t think hydrogen proponents are all grifters.  I am sure they have their share of sleazy (or ignorant) promoters, like the author of the summary above, that tout the benefits and ignore the barriers.  I think that hydrogen is a useful energy storage and transport technology that surely doesn’t solve our energy generation problems, but is more environmentally friendly than much of the current battery technology which depends on rare minerals, and has significant weight issues.

          Peace.  I appreciate your posts.

           

    • #256617
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,534

      So how does hydrogen being a carrier of energy differ from hydrocarbons?  If both are just carriers of energy, the former is lots cleaner.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

      • #257406
        c6330507
        Blocked
        • Total Posts: 59

        So how does hydrogen being a carrier of energy differ from hydrocarbons? If both are just carriers of energy, the former is lots cleaner.

        The only “exhaust” from Hydrogen when burned / used is water and heat. No other emissions. So it is cleaner than using hydrocarbons.

        Here’s a link to a page with studies done by professionals that can help others understand the significance of this energy paradigm shift

        Downloads

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.