hydrogen isnt an energy source, its a battery. use your excess peak wind or sun to convert water to hydrogen and you can store and ship that hydrogen just like natural gas, either to power vehicles using combustion engines or to run gas fired power plants to fill the wind/solar troughs. it's not happening any time soon, but it is being trialled at scale. the Dutch are testing it in the North Sea as they have that excess wind/lack of wind problem

Johny your media is pissing on you and calling it rain. I have been
researching this for the day job for 2 years now.

Define your terms. The EU greenie weenies lump biofuels into renewables
to make the numbers look good. Also the finalized data from 2020 and 2021
are not available yet. Biofuels produce just as much CO2 as fossil fuels...

2019 EU used
2,800 TWh of electricity
426 TWh were from wind turbines
280 TWh were from solar

The big problem is your (EU) electrical generation capacity has flat lined since
2007 when woke western countries started closing down coal and fossil fuel
plants at a prodigious rate. You will not have the power to charger your new
fancy BEV cars.

BTW, we are doing the same stupid shit on this side of the pond. Flat lined
electrical generation since 2008, no new plants coming on line.

Nobody looks at the downside of the solar or wind farms. Solar farms destroy
the land and will render it sterile for decades after the solar farms are gone.
Every wind turbine will forever render 1/4 acre of land worthless. That is due
to the concrete ballast they leave in the ground.

Wind and solar are not the panacea you are being sold on. BTW, if you have
to buy an EV get a plug-in hybrid. That way you can still get somewhere
when your grid collapses. Because it will if we don't change where we are
headed. They are banning natural gas for heating and cooking in the EU and
the US. This just adds more demand to an already overloaded grid.

The cracking of water to base components is a terribly inefficient use of electricity. The energy returned by cracking is about 25% of what you put in. The return of useful energy is god-awful. People have been trying to do this since the 1920s and the math didn't work even then. Maybe now it does work out, when you can con the taxpayer into paying for everything.
The second issue where I agree with Ron and green smoke, is that you cannot pressurize hydrogen and pump it down the line to the customer. Have you heard of low hydrogen welding rods? Well yeah, we have long known that hydrogen weakens steel. It can penetrate the matrix of the metal and head for our space. The only effective way they have found to store hydrogen where it can't escape and destroy your pipeline is to turn it into a hydride. Lithium hydride works well, and then you can heat it, preferably with a petroleum product, and the hydride will release the gas. The lithium hydride can be hauled by truck to the end user.

Science is offensive to these people, almost as offensive as a constitution, which is the reason they had to get control of scientists and make them sing the approved tune. And they did.

Hydrogen is probably the most explosive gas we know of, as it has an explosive range from 4% to 74%. Gasoline has an explosive range from 10 to 15% and propane has a much narrower range.

To me, hydrogen is great news because the people who are going to get smoked, are the ones who deserve it, they will be the first in line for the kool-aid and hydrogen chaser.

First off, thank you for an actual answer as opposed to "physics"

Leaving aside the all the CO2 generated of producing biofuels for a moment..... The CO2 produced by burning biofuels is the same CO2 that the plants absorbed from the atmosphere, part of the natural carbon cycle, just like the methane from cow burps, or the CO2 we all breathe. its all going around in circles and will be absorbed by this years crops. The only new CO2 is that which is being released from the ground, either by burning fossil fuels or from gas releases underground or thawing permafrost

Totally agree.
They started closing more than that, they're closing a lot of the nuclear plants too. if there is enough lithium and cobalt in the world to make all the car batteries they won't be able to charge them any time soon. but they will be able to charge them someday. The problem is much bigger than power plants or batteries though. The grid infrastructure isn't there in most countries to get that power where it needs to be.

That's why the only future without fossil fuels to my mind has to have hydrogen as a major part. but derived from water, not natural gas.

Fossil fuel extraction destroys lots of land too, if nuclear goes wrong the same happens. there's lots of land that's already sterile in the world that gets a hell of a lot of sun that would be ideal for solar farming and there's lots of ocean out there too suited to offshore wind. none of this is black and white


I don't believe for one second that wind and solar are a panacea no more than I believe that they are pointless. they are part of the system, but in time I do think they have the potential to supplant fossil fuels. not soon, but also not never.



I might consider buying a battery car in a few years time, we've three vehicles between two drivers so having a battery commuter car might make sense in another ten years. I don't do new cars so I'll be sticking to my dino juice for now.

Battery cars are great till the thing dies . We lost a Civic Hybrid at only 234,000 as the battery died . The only charging for regular start came from the hybrid so could not even run on the litttle 3 cyl . So a good car that still used little oil was no longer worth repairing .

Umm fossils fuels came from plants that consumed CO2, so technically fossil fuels are bio fuels... :rolleyes:

Also is CO2 really bad for our biome?

Soooo, saw this article a while back. Here’s why I figure that the wind/solar thing is overblown.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...QPJilPwOS7notI


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah come on, not this again. You used the term biofuels first. And you used it to refer to fuels produced from crops grown today, not millions of years ago.

Fossil fuels are releasing CO2 that was removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago.

At a macro level no, nature changes and nature adapts. But if the vast majority of scientists are right then it's going to have serious implications for people and will trigger one of the most concentrated human migrations in history as people move to places that are more hospitable than their traditional homelands. That is likely to provoke serious social changes that might not be popular in the receiving country's and will provoke water wars in others where. The changes are less extreme.

We won't know for sure if the majority of scientists are wrong or right until it's all over.

Man and nature will survive, but it will be a bumpy journey. Man can in my opinion afford to change and it's one of those things where if we can, why wouldn't we? Because it's hard?

Yeah, at our latitudes solar is only any use as an input to a battery system. Off grid homes, camper vans, datacentres etc.

Renewable energy is only any use if you can store it. You either produce and store it locally using some sort of chemical battery technology or you use it to break the hydrogen out of water which gives you a fuel that can be handled largely the same way as natural gas. Not as easy as natural gas but easier than getting enough batteries and grid capacity to move the electrons from where they're easily produced to where they're needed.

Renewables as we currently use them are never going to get much beyond 60/70 of grid requirements because of the nature of how the grid works. We need nukes and fossil fuels to manage the system for the foreseeable.

See herein lies the dilemna. Even as a ‘direct’ employee of the oil industry, many of the workers realize that oil is a ‘finite’ resource at this point. Maybe wind and solar are part of the solution. Issue is, at this point in time, the cost versus the return still makes them experimental at best. However, to me, it seems that, for the most part, those costs are being paid by a handful, typically Europe, USA, Canada and a few others. Some of the big contributors, like China, don’t contribute 2 cents unless they can make 10 in return.

Why then, do I have to pay 10 cents to get a 2 cent return on my $$?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk