I’m all in favor of hydrogen-powered plants to produce electricity if only we had cheap hydrogen. But we don’t and likely won’t.
A Bad Bet on Hydrogen Hype
Bloomberg cautions Europe’s Spending Billions on Green Hydrogen. It’s a Risky Gamble
Today, the bright yellow power plant tucked behind a graffiti-covered fence burns planet-warming gas to produce electricity. But if all goes to plan, it will one day switch to emissions-free hydrogen. It’s the first, tiny part of a dream energy system being sketched out by policymakers across Europe, who are banking on the green fuel to meet some of the world’s most aggressive climate targets. That dream rests on converting newly built polluting infrastructure to burn hydrogen, a fuel that’ll be many times more expensive than natural gas and that no one has figured out how to move safely and cheaply in bulk.
Governments and companies that are racing to meet net-zero deadlines but worried about energy security can still build billions of dollars worth of gas infrastructure as long as it’s “hydrogen-ready.” Nine of the world’s 10 biggest carbon polluters have published hydrogen strategies and incentives to grow the fuel’s use, which globally already exceed $360 billion, according to BloombergNEF.
Gas-dependent economies including Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and the UK are among Europe’s biggest proponents for using hydrogen and some have plans to use it to generate electricity. But there’s no official definition of what makes a plant hydrogen-ready, opening the door for greenwashing. For power plants, burning hydrogen hasn’t even been tested at scale.
“There has not yet been any measurable progress in the construction of hydrogen-ready, gas-fired power plants,” said Eric Heymann, an economist at Deutsche Bank Research.
Then there’s the problem of moving hydrogen around. The Leipzig plant isn’t hooked up to the grid (and hasn’t yet set up its own electrolyzers), which means the highly combustible fuel will have to be trucked in until the second part of the government’s grand plan comes to fruition. It’s building a €1 billion liquefied natural gas terminal in Brunsbuettel, a town along the North Sea, that will initially import LNG but be designed to also handle futuristic clean fuels.
Hydrogen can only be liquefied at -253C (-423F), well beyond the capabilities of today’s LNG ships. So Germany is planning to import hydrogen in the form of liquid ammonia, a combination of hydrogen and nitrogen that can more easily be turned into a liquid. But ammonia is toxic and handling requires better ventilation systems. Many components in the terminal, including control valves and fire and gas sensors as well as inline devices — most of which have not been tested with ammonia — will also need upgrades, according to Fraunhofer ISI, an energy think tank.
Not Viable But Full Speed Ahead
Germany doesn’t have an ammonia pipeline network and there are limitations to moving it via trucks on an industrial scale because it’s hazardous. That means ammonia will have to be converted back into hydrogen, yet there’s no economically viable technology currently available to do that. The terminal’s operator said it will discuss alternative strategies if none emerge by next year.
Wind and solar produce clean electricity — a commodity the world already uses. Green hydrogen, on the other hand, will require building more solar and wind farms when, in many cases, it would be simpler to just use that clean energy directly. By the time hydrogen is made, stored and burned to make electricity again, there’s nearly 70% less energy than at the start — and the cost has tripled.
Plans Only Exist On Paper
For the most part, the plans only exist on paper. That’s because they only work on paper.
A trial in the UK was cancelled when people made an uproar after learning they would have to replace their furnaces and stoves for new hydrogen appliances.
That does not apply to the situation discussed above which proposes burning hydrogen to produce electricity. However, there is a 70 percent loss of energy in the conversion from hydrogen to ammonia then back to hydrogen to burn it.
This makes no sense anywhere. Nonetheless, Germany is spending $20 billion to make electricity plants “hydrogen ready”.
Wasting $20 billion is a monthly occurrence in the Biden administration, but that’s a lot of money to Germany which unlike the US has budget rules.
China Shock
Germany is feeling the pinch of China shock. But the US is on deck too. A global trade war looms.
For discussion, please see China Shock II Is Coming, the EU Will Be Hit Hard, Then the US
Germany has too much else to worry about to waste money on absurd projects.
Also see Is China Dumping US Treasuries and Buying Gold? Bloomberg Says Yes, Pettis Uncertain
Lex in depth: how the hydrogen hype fizzled out
Once viewed as a superfuel that could decarbonise large chunks of the economy, the likely uses are shrinking dramatically
https://archive.md/NSEH9#selection-1577.0-1585.121
Dont know about hydrogen, but I can tell we can get plenty of Methane from the White House and Congress.
Sadly, that’s not even methane (which can at least be useful), it’s just hot air…
This is just another part of The Three Pillars of Bullshit.
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
It makes no sense… but it does not have to make sense… so long as bbccnn say it is possible … then the barnyard animals will believe it.
And that is all that matters.
“But there’s no official definition of what makes a plant hydrogen-ready, opening the door for greenwashing.” “Germany is spending $20 billion to make electricity plants “hydrogen ready”.”
Sounds like some expensive virtue signalling.
They’re not spending $20billion to make anything.
They’re just handing $20billion to connected idiots no longer capable of doing anything productive. No different from the US nor the rest of The West.
The $20billion will go to overpaying once-were-competitive union labor for building bridges to nowhere. As well as to hand welfare to the daddy-bought-me-a-once-impressive-sounding-“degree” dilettante children of lock limit idiots on ECB welfare, so they can sit there “presenting” and mindlessly bumbling on about “my, like, startup, like, doing, like, you know, like, future, like musk and vision, like…” things… As well as funding evermore handouts to the ever present, always illiterate, dumb, retarded, useless, clueless, worthless nothings who can then sit around; like the chimpanzees they intellectually mirror to a tee; to “make money” off of “financing” the trivially obvious; to anyone even just minimally sentient; drivel.
It’s the EU’s “self driving cars” and “AI”. Just marketed to a retarded, captive indoctrinati more easily swayed if the trivially obvious drivel is packaged up in a supposedly “green” wrapper. Instead of a “future, like, you know, Silicon Valley, like Musk, like ‘make money’” one.
There is nothing to any of it. Just taking money, and influence: From the rapidly declining number of possibly productive people; in order to hand it to the absolute dumbest of the dumb, “made money” off my “home” and random number picking, crowd of negative value-add, bottom of any possible barrel, rabble.
The only reason anyone, at all, even remotely falls for any of it, is that there, in the entire West; literally exists not one single person; in any position, of any neither wealth nor influence; in any neither nominally “public” nor “private” role; who is even remotely as advanced; not intellectually, not productively; in any way whatsoever; as the guys who ran around hacking eachother up in Rwanda a few decades ago. Those guys were, no bs and no hyper bole, far far ahead on any meaningful measure of intellectual, scientific and logical sophistication, compared to anyone with any wealth and/or influence in the entire West today. No exaggeration.
This is the sole and only reason why any of this is even mentioned these days. That, and the complete doozy; that even those Westerners who ought to know better; and who hence obviously have neither any wealth nor influence; are so indoctrinated that they still fall for such complete, childish, trivially obvious pure nonsense as the drivel that the undifferentiated mass of complete imbeciles who have been handed all “their” stolen wealth and influence; must by some magical means be “smart” because of it. That’s how you end up in a situation like today’s West. Where it’s not just the dumb leading the dumber. But indeed where the very dumbest is now leading them all. Which is, 100%, full stop, all that is left of The West by now.
In any world even the tiniest bit less singularly retarded; there would be not even a mention of “hydrogen ready” power stations. Nor “self driving cars”. Nor “AI” as anything meaningfully distinct form any other power drill like tool. 100%, full scale redistribution; of everything; to the very, very dumbest; and ONLY to them; is the ONLY reason ANY of this even “exists” as a talking meme.
Consider this … the government has 10B to spend… let’s say the options are:
Both projects create jobs and add to GDP… but both are equally useless. Most of what we spend money on is useless… ice rinks… ski hill operations… junk in Walmart… the list is endless…
The hydrogen bullshit serves a purpose — it convinces the herd that the future is awesome… and that everyone can continue to live large
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
That is the standard pessimism that boggles the mind. The earth is covered by H2O. Yes, based on current understanding, it is expensive to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen.
But where is your optimism around human abilities? I believe that the oceans kinetic energy can be cheaply converted to electricity for electrolysis of sea water. I also believe that geothermal energy is another cheap source of energy to produce electricity. It may be that creating hydrogen involves additional steps to create, but hydrogen is more practical for transportation than straight up electricity.
If it was easy, at an acceptable cost, it would have been done by now.
It takes more energy for electrolysis than you get out.
You’re old enough to remember when storage was incredibly expensive. An IBM 3380 disk back in 1980 held an unprecedented 2.5GB of storage and an array of 4 of them (10GB) cost in the millions of $$. A data center had low GIGAbytes of TOTAL storage. Today, I can buy a single 18TB hard drive for $350 or less!
Isn’t this how everything works? Early approaches to anything are inefficient and expensive but we don’t give up. We work on the problem and we develop better solutions. This is what will happen with H2 production and the expansion will be exponential.
See my post here:
https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-eu-is-spending-billions-on-hydrogen-ready-but-wheres-the-hydrogen/#comment-257356
This device is ready to roll out, not something in early stage development and looks to be close to break even in the cost of producing H2 from seawater.
Have to love how everyone loves to compare all “inventions” to computer tech, mainly chips and drives, of course ignoring all the factors that drove innovation in those technologies. Chips and drives had demand, without ANY government intervention. And the demand was explosive, without ANY government subsidies or intervention. They were always relatively cheap, small, and able to be sold en masse. Again, NO government intervention needed.
Wrong! I chose just one company, Intel, and asked the following question of Perplexity.ai.
Q. has intel ever received government subsidies?
A. Yes, Intel has received government subsidies in the past and is set to receive substantial subsidies from the US government under the CHIPS and Science Act.
The key points regarding Intel’s government subsidies are:
– Intel will receive up to $8.5 billion in direct funding from the CHIPS Act for semiconductor manufacturing projects in Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon.[1][3][4]
– Intel is also eligible for up to $11 billion in federal loans and an investment tax credit of up to 25% on qualified investments up to $100 billion under the CHIPS Act.[1]
– This funding will support Intel’s previously announced $100 billion investment plan to expand domestic chipmaking capacity and produce cutting-edge AI chips in the US.[1]
– Prior to the CHIPS Act, Intel has received various state-level subsidies over the years, including tax credits, rebates, property tax abatements, and training reimbursements from states like Arizona, New Mexico, California, Washington, and Oregon, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.[2]
– For example, Intel received over $200 million in “megadeals” from Oregon in the 1990s and over $82 million from Arizona in 1994 for semiconductor manufacturing facilities.[2]
So in summary, while Intel has benefited from state subsidies historically, the CHIPS Act funding represents a major new federal investment to bolster domestic semiconductor production, with Intel being one of the primary beneficiaries.[1][3][4][5]
While I was earning my engineering degree, I discovered a critically important scientific principle. “If it works, then there is almost certainly someone already doing it.”
Charles never took a course in chemistry.
“The Hazer Process enables low temperature conversion of natural gas and similar methane feedstocks, into hydrogen and high-quality graphite, using iron ore as a process catalyst”
https://app.sharelinktechnologies.com/announcement/asx/140a62ea4fee7bea083bd6e8bf4a03eb
Hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles have been around for over 50 years. In that timeframe they have not proven themselves more practical than ICE or EV.
There are less than 100k FCVs in the world today vs 50 million EVs and 1.5 billion ICE.
They will remain a niche for the next 50 years as well.
Another armchair “engineer” pontificates: “hydrogen is more practical for transportation than electricity”…so its sheer ”practicality” (whatever that means) trumps everything….such as breaking the hydrogen-oxygen covalent bond.
Everywhere one is assaulted (“I believe” ….and “I believe”) by solipsism.
There is plenty of hydrogen in the ocean. The only problem is, it takes energy to separate it from oxygen. Hydrogen is an energy storage scheme, much like batteries. There is no panacea here, unless you are talking about nuclear fusion. But that problem is not practical today or in the foreseeable future.
“But that problem is not practical today or in the foreseeable future.”
YOU MISSED IT BY A MILLION MILES: replace “fusion” with “Energy” and reinstate Nuclear Power plants. It is the cleanest energy source and the whole world is SMOKE THE GOOD GANJA of “GREEN.”
If this isn’t feasible for those with a brain then that tells me it must be govt and/or bureaucrat stooges at the helm that are doing this for whatever personal gains(rather the project works or not) and brushing the science aside.
Its the same brain trust that destroyed almost land locked Germany’s nuclear plants because they feared a tsunami like the one that hit coastal Japan.
Its the same brain trust that dismantled Germany’s coal mining and coal power plants to buy overpriced solar panels and wind propellers that come apart in high wind (and don’t spin in low wind).
Last summer, Germany announced it was tearing down solar farms (built on coal streams) and resuming coal mining and coal power generation…. something about the Nordstream II pipeline being blown up. It wasn’t Biden even though Biden promised to do it and gloated about it afterward… No, could not be NATO on NATO.
So Germany is back to coal power, and the Brussels central planners are back to fantasy ‘green’ bribery scams. Paraphrasing Mark Twain: history usually rhymes, but sometimes it repeats exactly the same as last round
Click this link and see what you think
link to e360.yale.edu.
The link is safe, It’s a serious idea/project from Yale.
I would put this in the category of; good potential; but unlikely to amount to much; because costs are still unknown; not to mention risks. It might become a small part of our overall energy sources over time, but I doubt it will make much of a difference in emissions and global warming.
Yale needs to pay its fair share of taxes.
Yale is the largest property owner in New Haven county Connecticut, and a top ten property owner in the state of Connecticut. They pay absolutely nothing, while their staff whine about other people not paying more.
Yale has one of the largest endowments in the USA — it is essentially a hedge fund with a decrepit school attached to the side. They pay absolutely zero income taxes, while their staff complain that others should pay more.
Yale was initially funded off the profits of slave trading. Not a hyperbole, the founder Eliya Yale was a well known slave trader with few other business interests. Yale university has admitted their founding patron was a slave trader.
The school is often in the news when faculty make dumb media comments, and after investigating it turns out the faculty member is practicing medicine without a licensed (or a medical diploma), a plagiarist, or never even completed an undergraduate degree.
It is offensive and repulsive to listen to these self proclaimed “experts” tell everyone else what to do.
F#ck Yale.
@Wheeler – please give us the link for the PDF where Yale shows everyone else in Connecticut how to evade all taxes
“The Yale guide to tax evasion and blaming everyone else for deficits”
Why waste money on non economic energy production like solar. H2 and windmills and concentrate on nuclear? Am I missing something.
Yes. You are missing quite a lot.
Nuclear currently produces roughly 9% of electricity worldwide. Wind is 8% and solar is 6%. Coal produces 35%. Natgas 23%. Hydro 15%.
Cost wise, solar is cheapest at $40/Mwh, wind is $41/Mwh, gas is $56, coal $109, and nuclear is $155.
In addition to being cheapest, solar can be added very quickly.
Nuclear is the most expensive and can take 10-20 years to build in most countries. China is the exception as they can build a nuclear plant in about 7 years (because they don’t allow anyone to oppose it). And China is building a lot of them. Plus a lot of wind and solar. In 2023 China added 53 GW of nuclear, 77 GW of wind and 220 GW of solar. Judging by those numbers, it is apparent that their biggest focus is on solar, which is cheapest.
Finally, we are talking just about electricity here. And electricity is just 20% of all the energy we consume. The other 80% is from using fossil fuels for everything else.
Just repeating typical green lies. Wind and solar are economical only if one omits most of the costs of intermittent, seasonal power production. The LCOE used in your assertions omits most of the costs. Simply, a false comparison between baseload and intermittent/power generation. Intermittent/seasonal power generation requires large amounts of over capacity, a combination of energy storage and peaker plants, vast networks of far-flung transmission capacity, lots more network intelligence and other devices to manage the intermittent/seasonal power generation, and often negative energy pricing to dump excess power during periods of low demand/peak power generation. A grid based fully on intemittent/seasonal power generation with increased demands for transportation and heat will never work in the USA at any cost.
Sure. That’s why China is adding so much nuclear, solar, and wind. It’s all to perpetuate those silly green lies.
China added 220 GW of solar in 2023 alone. The US has a added total of 175 GW after 50 years. That’s sure an expensive endeavour just to perpetuate a lie.
Maybe you should do some more research on solar power. You kind of need lots of sun and storage. You also need to hope they don’t get destroyed by a storm, which has happened to a couple fields of them in Texas and other places.
As to China, it’s all government directed funding. So who cares what they are doing? Governments are full of idiots. Especially those that make decisions.
Why should I research solar when you can explain it all to me? You seem very well informed: apparently, you know this “You kind of need lots of sun”. Wow! Brilliant!
Instead of useless platitudes, why don’t you show me some numbers about why solar is not worth the effort. Because in 2023, 510 GW of solar was installed worldwide. What do you know that all those companies and countries don’t? Show me some convincing numbers.
Myself, I know very little; other than that it seems like a crap load of new solar is installed every year. But that amount is still nowhere near enough to reduce our dependence on oil and gas. Which is why I have been heavily invested in oil and gas stocks for the last four years.
Now do that list over again based on which method of elecrical generation in the most dependable. I think Hydro would be #1, Nuclear #2 and Coal #3. Everyone wants cheep electricy but they DEMAND it to be depenable.
All energy sources have issues. None is 100% reliable. I found one site that said nuclear is 92% reliable.
While the consumer wants reliabilty, they also want lowest cost.
There is a reason why the US hasn’t built much nuclear in the last 40 years. It takes too long and it’s too expensive.
You can build a nuclear plant in 10-20 years at a cost of $20 billion. Or you could build an equivalent natural gas plant in 2 years for $2 billion. Or you can build the equivalent wind and solar in 6 months for 1 billion. Which is why we have added so many NG plants, and even more wind and solar.
For example, Texas gets 45% of its’s electricity from natural gas. But only 10% from nuclear.
And even states like Texas have embraced wind and solar. Texas gets 26% of its electricity from wind and solar already. And that is why they are expanding those renewables rapidly, because it goes up faster than nuclear and gas, and costs less.
To improve reliability, wouldn’t it be best to employ as many types of energy as possible. Nuclear, coal, gas, wind, solar, etc.
In last summers Texas heat wave, wind and solar were more reliable than nuclear and natural gas.
It Could Be a Vast Source of Clean Energy, Buried Deep Underground
In eastern France, and in other places around the world, deposits of natural hydrogen promise bountiful power. But questions remain.
Liz Alderman
Dec. 4, 2023
In the rocky soil of Lorraine, a former coal mining region near the French-German border, scientists guided a small probe one recent day down a borehole half a mile into the earth’s crust.
Frothing in the water table below was an exciting find: champagne-size bubbles that signaled a potentially mammoth cache of so-called white hydrogen, one of the cleanest-burning fuels in nature.
“Hydrogen is magical — when you burn it you release water, so there are no carbon emissions to warm the planet,” said one of the scientists, Jacques Pironon, a senior researcher and professor at the University of Lorraine. “We think we’ve uncovered one of the largest deposits of natural hydrogen anywhere in the world.”
…
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/business/energy-environment/clean-energy-hydrogen.html
Same answer. True but insignificant.
Being reported in the NYTimes immediately reduces its credibility.
Advances are being made all the time in more efficient ways to extract H2. Here’s one that looks super promising.
World’s most efficient water electrolyzer prepares to be mass-produced
This new electrolyzer design is 20 percent more efficient than its peers and will make green hydrogen even more accessible.
Updated: May 13, 2024 10:06 AM EST
Ameya Paleja
Hysata, a New South Wales-based company that makes electrolyzers, has announced its latest breakthrough: It can generate hydrogen with a whopping 95 percent efficiency.
The company recently raised Series B funding and is now preparing to make green hydrogen available at a large scale around the globe.
…
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/worlds-most-efficient-electrolyzer
All true but insignificant. It won’t make a difference to our overall emissions.
The device makes H2 more efficiently. D’oh.
A more efficient teaspoon for emptying the ocean. Right.
Wording seems eerily reminiscent of Solyndra in the Obama years.
You do know that writing a press release is easier than scaling up a technical process from prototype to production, don’t you? Oh, excuse me.
Hydrogenomics will be another Nobel Prize.
Literally everywhere.
This is probably a Bloomberg hoax written on a slow news day. On industrial scale, hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Electrolysis is still more expensive. EU lawyer-bureaucrats grasping at a straw.
“In steam-methane reforming, methane reacts with steam under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide. Steam reforming is endothermic—that is, heat must be supplied to the process for the reaction to proceed.Subsequently, in what is called the “water-gas shift reaction,” the carbon monoxide and steam are reacted using a catalyst to produce carbon dioxide and more hydrogen.”
“Blue” H2 is released from natural gas. There are other flavors, such as green.
Blue is 95% of hydrogen produced today. Green is less than 1%.
And the point you wanted to make was?
That green is insignificant and over hyped.
It may be insignificant NOW. It won’t be in the future. Most companies and people invest for the future.
Yes. And after more than two decades and trillions of investment in renewables, we are still using MORE fossil fuels each year.
I have nothing against renewables. Please build more of them. I’m just trying to put them into the proper perspective. After all that investment they still can’t even keep up with our ever-growing demand for more energy.
Perhaps China will show us the way. They will be adding so many renewables in 2024 that their coal consumption might actually drop this year.
Incidentally, thanks for proving my point with Scott Craig Leboo.
A hydrogen economics only makes sense if you have a lot of excess electricity being produced from solar and wind that can’t be used and instead could be used to make storable hydrogen. We’re nowhere near having excess capacity and what hydrogen there is is mostly from methane
Yes, conversion of energy to hydrogen and recover of the energy costs half the energy. Hydrogen wastes energy.
Hello?? Don’t they realize when you convert hydrogen to energy (burning, combustion, etc.) it combines with oxygen to form water vapor. Guess what water vapor is – that’s right, it is a greenhouse gas!
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/basics-climate-change
So if we are going to create more greenhouse gasses, why don’t we just stick with fossil fuels?
Shoosh….you just let the cat out of the bag damn it!!!!
Are you aware of the water cycle? You know, from grade 5 Science.
Water evaporates from the surface, into the atmosphere, stays there for a few days, and then comes back down as rain, snow, etc.
Burning hydrogen and producing water vapor won’t change the level of water in the atmosphere. Because it will just come back down to earth in a few days.
What DOES change the amount of water the atmosphere can hold is the temperature of the atmosphere. A 1c increase in global temperatures means that the atmosphere can hold 7% more water vapor. Which has happened over the last 150 years.
Water does not control the temperature of the atmosphere. The other greenhouse gasses do; in conjunction with the water. But by raising the levels of greenhouse gasses, we warm the atmosphere, which can then hold more water.
Water is an intermediary. It only stays in the atmosphere a few days, as it goes through that water cycle.
CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 300+ years. CH4 for 20+ years. H2O for a few days.
Don’t worry about the water.
From the NASA website:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Water
More recent studies using AIRS data have demonstrated that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but rather from increased water vapor and other factors that amplify the initial warming.
Exactly as I said. “In conjunction with the water.” Since NASA said amplify, I will give you an analogy; water is the speaker and CO2 is the amplifier. Without the water, the effect of CO2 would be much less. Without the CO2 water would do almost nothing.
If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the average temperature of the planet would be minus 18 C. At that temperature, there would be very little water left in the atmosphere as it would all be in the frozen ice on the planet’s surface. Just like it has in the past.
Add CO2 to the atmosphere and it begins to warm. Which then helps some of the ice melt, which the CO2 then amplifies to enhance the warming.
I repeat. Adding water from burning hydrogen will not change the amount of water in the atmosphere. Only an increase in temperature will increase the water in the atmosphere. And that increase in temperature comes from adding more CO2, which is then amplified by the water that is already there.
“…Water evaporates from the surface, into the atmosphere, stays there for a few days, and then comes back down as rain, snow, etc.
Burning hydrogen and producing water vapor won’t change the level of water in the atmosphere. Because it will just come back down to earth in a few days….”
That’s not entirely accurate.
Water vapor is an amplifier greenhouse gas. It is not considered a primary causitive greenhouse gas. Those honors go to Co2 and methane (assuming you believe that). So if one believes the climate change narrative, Co2 and methane will increase atmospheric temps which will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere which will amplify the greenhouse effect.
Warmer air does, in fact, hold more water vapor, and water vapor does absorb and trap heat. Ever notice the dew point in the summer time and its associated heat index? It’s often quite high depending on where you live. When a cold front moves through the water vapor condenses and it rains. In the winter time the air is quite dry and dew points are low in temperate zones generally speaking.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Exactly as I said. You should go back and read my entire post. Thanks for confirming.
Your scientific reasoning is faulty. You can add water vapor to the atmosphere if the relative humidity is less than 100%. Very few places on earth stay at 100% RH. Think the hot deserts…
Oh for f*ck sakes. I’ m getting tired of trying to teach you something. Try looking it up yourself. It’s grade 5 science so it shouldn’t be hard to find.
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature. Higher temperature air holds more water.
But there has to be a source of water to evaporate to get the water into the air. Deserts don’t have much water. So most deserts have low humidity in the atmosphere above them. The exception is coastal deserts, since they are close to water.
I repeat. Burning hydrogen releases water, but the amount is tiny compared to the normal water cycle. And it will not remain in the atmosphere for long, since the water cycle will precipitate it back to earth is short order.
The amount of water in the entire atmosphere is dependent on temperature.
Since the atmosphere is now 1C warmer than in the past, it will suck more water out of the ground in one region and put it in the atmosphere, often causing a drought (like in the southwest US) and then it will piss that additional water back to the earth a few hundred miles away in the form of “record”’or “once in a century” rainfalls, often causing floods (like in Texas).
“..Burning hydrogen releases water, but the amount is tiny compared to the normal water cycle…”
Miniscule or not, it’s still an increase so it would have a negative (according to some) effect on temps (an increase). Your statment also assumes some knuckle politicians wouldn’t try to force the implemention of Hydrogen fuel en mass regardless of the cost.
“…And it will not remain in the atmosphere for long, since the water cycle will precipitate it back to earth is short order..”
If temps all over the planet increase so will net water vapor levels in the atmosphere, compounding the climate change issue (again according to some). And why does the fact that it rains matter so much to you? Of course it rains, it’s the relationship between temps and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that matters when speaking of climate change temps. Higher temps will result in higher net atmospheric water vapor levels, compounding climate change (according to some).
Yes. If temperature increases across the planet because of more greenhouse gasses, the atmosphere will hold more water.
Nope. The source of the water is meaningless since it is all part of the same water cycle.
Why does rain matter? Because if you add excess water, say from burning a bunch of hydrogen (in addition to normal evaporation), it won’t stay in the atmosphere for long if the atmosphere can’t hold it, based on temperature. It will precipitate out. And it will do so in a few days.
Adding water from hydrogen into the water cycle does not change the total amount of water in the water cycle. Assuming the hydrogen came from electrolysing water in the first place, it’s all part of the same water cycle.
It’s all a zero sum cycle. The amount of water vapor in the air only depends on temperature (as you keep pointing out). It does not depend on the source.
I did read your post in its entirety. My issue with your reply is your assertion that net water vapor levels in the atmosphere won’t change (quote below). This is not true. As temps increase due to increases in atmospheric Co2 (something you assert all the time in the comments here) net water vapor levels in the atmosphere will necessarily increase since warmer air can hold more water vapor, further compounding the warming effect (run away greenhouse effect). With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if the use of Hydrogen fuel creates water vapor as a by product it will contribute to the warming of the atmosphere.
“…Burning hydrogen and producing water vapor won’t change the level of water in the atmosphere. Because it will just come back down to earth in a few days….”
No. Your last statement is not reasonable at all. More water from burning hydrogen will not change the overall levels of water in the atmosphere. The levels of water vapor are a function of temperature, not source. Add more water vapor than the atmosphere can hold and it will just precipitate out.
I clearly stated that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature. A 1C increase in temperature and the atmosphere can hold 7% more water. More greenhouse gasses will increase the temperature and therefore increase the water vapor levels.
Where the water comes from is immaterial. Whether it comes from natural evaporation or from burning hydrogen does not matter.
So burning more hydrogen will not increase the water vapor levels in the atmosphere over and above the natural levels, because they are determined by the temperature, not the source. Any excess water from hydrogen burning will just precipitate out.
If you want to make a case for the “hydrogen economy” increasing global warming, it will be from leaks of CH4 and CO2 adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Not from more water vapor.
There is a relatively fixed amount of water in the world and it all plays out in the water cycle. If you are electrolyzing water to get hydrogen, and then later burning the hydrogen to get water, that is just part of the entire water cycle; and a very tiny part.
The levels in the global atmosphere only depend on global temperature; not source of water.
Others think water vapor from hydrogen fuel is an issue. It’s fine if you don’t. You do you bud.
From article linked below….
“…Also, when hydrogen is released into the atmosphere, some of it ends up transforming into water vapor in the stratosphere. While water vapor in the lower troposphere does not cause warming, vapor higher up in the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect of its own. This is thought to account for about 30% of the warming potential of hydrogen, IEER reports…
https://energynews.us/2024/02/28/scientists-warn-a-poorly-managed-hydrogen-rush-could-make-climate-change-worse/#:~:text=Also%2C%20when%20hydrogen%20is%20released,greenhouse%20effect%20of%20its%20own.
Another article linked below….
“…Hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas, but its chemical reactions in the atmosphere affect greenhouse gases like methane, ozone, and stratospheric water vapor. In this way, emissions of hydrogen can cause global warming, despite its lack of direct radiative properties…”
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-global-potential-hydrogen.html
Neither of those things relate to our discussion. They are both discussing hydrogen release, not water vapor release.
The first statement talks about the potential for more global warming from the release of hydrogen into the stratosphere, which then will create more water vapor in the stratosphere.
This may be true. But it has nothing to do with increased global warming from burning hydrogen to produce water vapor in our troposphere.
In addition, the stratosphere has been cooling for decades now, as climate models have predicted. And I doubt that the amount of hydrogen we use will change this in any significant way.
The second statement is also about hydrogen release interacting with other elements to increase global warming. Not about more water vapor.
Now: Just go back to your original correct statement. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere.
That is correct.
And forget about the source of that water vapor. Whether it is from natural evaporation or from burning hydrogen does not matter.
Papa, I know you like being thorough, but no one is gonna read long postings over and over and over. Youre wasting your time if you cant summarize a little. No offense.
Feel free to summarize for me. I am doing my best to keep things simple enough for readers here to understand. And if I leave something out, for brevity, people like to jump all over my statements to say I missed something.
It’s too bad that people have such short attention spans that they can’t take 2 minutes to read a post.
A couple of my posts on this thread are just a few words.
Common sense isn’t that common.
Apparently. The science is “relatively” simple (though in reality, it can get incredibly complex if you want to dig deeper). I try to dumb it down to make it easier to understand. There’s no point in trying to discuss it at college or phd levels, given the audience here.
Sadly, even at grade 5 level, I am often hitting my head on a brick wall because it is beyond a large number of cult morons who want to believe it’s all a hoax.
Don’t forget, the process of converting H2 to energy also releases HEAT that warms the atmosphere.
Yup, that’s how the sun creates energy. Two light nuclei elements merge (hydrogen in the case of the sun) to form a heavier element. The difference in mass between the newly created heavier element and the two source lighter elements is released as energy (law of conservation = energy can neither created nor destroyed only converted to different forms. Einstien’s famous equation E=MC2 (mass/energy equation) applies here as well.
More human bodies with a need to keep their body temperature at approximately 98.6°F also releases heat into the atmosphere. More bodies = more heat released by humans!
Insignificant. The sun provides 3000x the energy that humans produce each day. Our heat contribution pales in comparison. What does matter is the greenhouse gasses we add to the atmosphere that captures more of the sun’s energy and warms the planet.
Frightening the level of buffoonery (reflecting “a little learning is dangerous thing”) here that keeps downvoting your technical comments.
Making energy always gives off heat. The question is whether the existing systems for keeping the Earth’s environmental systems balanced can continue to do so as more people and more industrialization release more heat into the atmosphere.
The amount of energy that the planet receives from the sun is some 3000 times the amount of energy that mankind releases each day. Our energy release is a rounding error.
However, by adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, we are able to trap more of that energy from the sun, and an insignificant amount of the heat from us.
Why does this make me keep thinking of the Hindenburg?
I was thinking the exact same thing while reading this. “F#@k around and find out” applies here. For the people who come up with these nutty ideas, the ends always justify the means.
Whether it’s a tank of gas, a big battery, or a fuel cell tank, they can all explode. That’s a thing with concentrated energy…
Fun fact: There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gas than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
This must be why they are called Hydrocarbons????
My favorite AI, Perplexity.ai says your “fun fact” is not a “fact” at all.
Q. Is there “more hydrogen in a gallon of gas than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen”
A. No, there is not more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. The opposite is true – a gallon of liquid hydrogen contains significantly more hydrogen than a gallon of gasoline.
A gallon of gasoline contains around 6 pounds of hydrogen atoms bound to carbon atoms in hydrocarbon molecules[1]. In contrast, a gallon of liquid hydrogen contains around 0.59 pounds of pure hydrogen gas in its liquid state[4]. Since hydrogen gas is extremely light, with a density around 14 times less than air, a gallon of liquid hydrogen contains a much larger quantity of hydrogen atoms compared to a gallon of gasoline, despite weighing less.
To illustrate, one source states “A gallon of liquid hydrogen, for instance, has about as much energy as a pint of gas[3].” This means a gallon of liquid hydrogen has around 8 times more energy content than a gallon of gasoline, due to the greater amount of hydrogen present.
So in summary, while gasoline contains hydrogen atoms as part of its molecular structure, liquid hydrogen is a more concentrated form containing far more hydrogen atoms per gallon than gasoline.
Madness?
“Those the gods wish to destroy they first make insane.”
Global populations are cratering.
Plants grow best at 1200 – 1400 PPM CO2
We are at 400 PPM
Plants get sick and die at 350 PPM
Does this mean anything to anyone?
What happened to the ocean acidification hoax. Remember the Great barrier reef was dying the clams were dissolving? Oh wait that was 100% fake but carbon warming is real.
Why anyone would believe any government policy that arose from academia is beyond me.
I don’t think anyone can grasp reality anymore.
The internet is dead.
“Does this mean anything to anyone?”
To me, it means you don’t know what you are talking about.
If plants died at CO2 levels below 350 ppm, then there shouldn’t be any plants left on the planet.
Because, for the last 3 million years, CO2 levels have ranged between a low of 170 ppm and a high of 300 ppm. Shouldn’t all those plants have died off in those 3 million years? But they didn’t. After 3 million years of CO2 between 170 and 300, it would appear that plants did just fine. Like all other life forms on the planet. They have all adapted to that CO2 range. Which means you are full of sh*t.
Now, how about the last 10,000 years. That is the time that mankind changed from hunter-gatherer to agrarian. We learned to grow crops and domesticate animals. Life was so good on earth that our population went from 5 million in 8000 BC to 1.5 billion in 1880. And in that entire timeframe, CO2 levels barely budged from 280 ppm. Isn’t it amazing that we grew all those crops at 280 ppm CO2? Which again means, you are full of sh*t.
And from 1880 to now, we changed from an agrarian society to an industrial society through our use of fossil fuels. The emissions from those fossil fuels caused CO2 levels to increase from 280 ppm to 425 ppm in the last 144 years. And our continued emissions are increasing CO2 levels more each year.
So I don’t think you need to worry about CO2 levels going back below 350 any time soon. Even if we magically stopped emissions today, it would take hundreds of years for CO2 levels to get back to the levels we are used to. Which is still okay for all the plants.
You should stop worrying about the plants. They will be fine.
But maybe you should try to learn some real science, rather than the cult conspiracy science you keep referencing. Because you just keep posting the same cult conspiracy sh*t, over and over again.
If you have any intelligence at all, you will stop posting this cult nonsense. My guess is that you will probably ignore the real scientific facts I just explained to you and keep posting your cult garbage, because you want to believe that sh*t, rather than reality.
Fast Bear looks like AI spew… or he’s just a motivated ignoramus.
Maybe. But he is most likely just another cult conspiracy moron that likes to spew cult garbage. When I have the time, I will occasionally refute what these cult morons say, but I would prefer an IGNORE button so I wouldn’t have to read the nonsense at all.
Hydrogen use will grow, but it will remain a tiny part of the entire energy system. Partly because there is no infrastructure for a large scale hydrogen system, and partly because it is currently very inefficient to use it to replace natural gas.
One way it will grow is to store excess energy from solar and wind. However, since there are dozens of other ways to store this energy when it isn’t needed, hydrogen will only be utilized when it makes sense.
Most hydrogen today (95%) is produced from steam reforming of natural gas (blue hydrogen). Gray hydrogen comes from coal.
Green hydrogen comes from electrolysis of water using renewable energy. This is the area that will grow a little, but it is currently under 1% of all hydrogen. I doubt if it will reach even 5% of all hydrogen within a decade. And it will not help the world reduce our emissions in any significant way.
The best way to reduce emissions worldwide would be to replace electricity generation from coal with natural gas. This could reduce worldwide emissions by roughly 5%.
After 20 years of wind, solar, EVs, hydrogen etc combined, they have not reduced our emissions by even 1%.
We are using MORE fossil fuels every year. Our emissions continue to increase every year. We are locking in a lot more global warming for the next 10-50 years, because of the lag between emissions and warming.
This is going to cost the world economy a lot as the years progress. If you think insurance is expensive now, just wait; rates are going to keep going up faster in the future, assuming you can get insurance at all.
Hydrogen will not save us. It is just another distraction, like EVs.
Lourenco Goncalves, Cliffs’ Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer said: “Completion of our $1 billion clean hydrogen-ready Toledo DR Plant through the depths of COVID stood as strong evidence of Cliffs’ expertise and resolve to drive down emissions. We are grateful for the support of the Department of Energy and their recognition of Cleveland-Cliffs’ strong leadership in steel decarbonization. Through these selections, DOE recognized and rewarded Cleveland-Cliffs’ track record of successfully executing large capital projects that result in operational efficiencies and lower GHG emissions.”
Mr. Goncalves added: “The investment at Middletown Works is confirmation that Cleveland-Cliffs is the benchmark for iron and steelmaking technology in the world, ahead of Japan, Korea, Europe, and China. Our experience in using natural gas has seamlessly catalyzed our transition into using hydrogen. Middletown and Butler Works are both critically important to the success of Cleveland-Cliffs and the industrial might of the United States.
https://www.clevelandcliffs.com/news/news-releases/detail/629/cleveland-cliffs-selected-to-receive-575-million-in-us#:~:text=(NYSE:%20CLF)%20announced%20today,and%20Butler%20Works%20in%20Pennsylvania.
Probs with hydrogen: #1 its the smallest atom (periodic table) — it leaks everywhere — whats gonna hold it? Prob #2, hydrogen is most commonly made from natural gas/methane (NH4), so you really dont have a “new” alternative fuel source.
Japan solved cheap hydrogen with waste heat from Nuclear plants.
There’s some interesting exploration work looking for natural hydrogen deposits.
If it plays out, hydrogen might become affordable enough to burn for energy.
I have a folder about underground pocket of hydrogen that results from water reacting with iron contaning rock.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/natural-geologic-hydrogen-climate-change#:~:text=As%20studies%20show%20far%20more,be%20practical%20or%20cost%2Deffective.