Green Hydrogen investment by private enterprise set to revolutionise the energy industry

I doubt it'll be replaced in my lifetime

 

We absolutely HAVE to "have it both ways" for the foreseeable future. Even if something like this comes along that provides literal free power with no emissions, it will have to be tested and proven, and then it will require some sort of infrastructure, likely massive unless it's some sort of appliance that people can install in their garage. (Wouldn't THAT be nice!)

A couple of more thoughts.

One is that power companies aren't just going to adopt any wonderful new tech just because it exists. They have existing power plants that are still going to work for decades until they reach the end of their useful lives, and they're not going to just turn them off until they've been fully depreciated, unless the finances force them to. Secondly, even IF we can completely eliminate petroleum from our power generation needs, it's still needed for hundreds of other products, like the plastic in the keyboard I'm typing on right now.

 

I don't know how long your lifetime will be. I don't know how long my lifetime will be. When we run out of oil.....if we do.... or oil becomes too expensive.....which it will....the solution will suddenly appear.

 

We are not going to run out of oil for a long time.
“Our supplies of natural resources are not limited in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce, and will constitute a smaller proportion of our expenses in future years.”
― Julian L. Simon

 

If oil isn't more scarce why do they have to drill a mile under water to get it? Why do they have to smash rocks or steam treat sand?

 

The more we use the more we find.
Between 1990 and 2011, the volume of global oil reserves increased significantly from just over 1 billion barrels in 1990 to nearly 1.7 billion. Since then, the quantity of oil reserves worldwide has remained roughly the same, with a slight increase in recent years.Aug 10, 2021

Global crude oil reserves 1990-2020 - Statista

 

Yes - which is why Annastacia Palaszczuk our Premier is taking this on cautiously. If Twiggy’s scheme for the green hydrogen is the “goer” we think it will be all will be sweet. We already have more than a few countries on standby ready to start buying the minute the hydrogen rolls off the shelf - not a few of whom are in Europe

 

Then why not leave it there for the future and start transitioning now?

 

Because there's no need to transition, and the expense of the transition investment would divert resources from more important and worthwhile endeavors.

 

Eventually the oil WILL run out and then where will you get your plastic? Transitioning is gaining some big “wins” NOW.

1. Renewables are reducing the cost of electricity
2. innovation is supporting a burgeoning market
3. Jobs are being created
4. Forget CO2 think Mercury and other pollutants of coal and coal burning power stations
5. No more “black lung” disease if we are no longer mining coal
6. The energy grid has long needed storage within the system - this is finally being introduced
7. The energy grids of most industrialised countries are long past the “use by” dates so investment in infrastructure, which private enterprise has been unwilling to do until now, can only be a good thing
8. With the revamping of the energy infrastructure will come more decentralisation - massive positives to THAT

I could go on but I was not surprised when you posted a picture of the Hindenburg as time and again your posts have shown dated technology and a reluctance to see new innovation that is being developed

 

1. Renewables are too intermittent to be baseload power sources.
2. The burgeoning market is largely a consumer of subsidies.
3. Any investment creates jobs.
4. Pollutants can be eliminated or at least reduced.
5. Most coal is now strip mined -- not much black lung in that.
6. The energy grid needs depth a redundancy.
7. Energy grids will attract investment when they're worth investing in.
8. Energy infrastructure decentralization is neither a positive or negative in isolation.

The Hindenburg post revealed nothing more than a sense of humor.

 

Number 4. A point everyone can agree upon.

 

it's good he is rich, sadly what happens too often is the rich oil industry buy these ideas and bury them

 

I don't know how much life I have could be over tomorrow. But I don't think if I lived to the 80 that I would see a replacement to vehicles that operate on fossil fuel if there was something more efficient we would be using that there wouldn't be any adoption it would just be what we all drove. Alternatives are alternatives because they're not as good as the standard in most cases.

I'm glad alternatives exist and I'm glad there's people willing to pursue them.

Also I don't think we'll run out of oil in my grandchildren's children's lifetimes.

 

1 No they are increasing it. The costs per megawatt hour of production is much greater. If it was cheaper than coal or natural gas that's what we would all be using.
2. No taxes are supporting it the market would eliminate it if it wasn't for massive subsidies.
3. Jobs would be created no matter what form of energy we use.
4. Nuclear and natural gas are the primary alternatives.
5. Or natural gas or nuclear.
6. Most places do not produce extra to change up storage batteries. They struggle and fail in places to meet demand. Storage batteries aren't a bad idea but we have to produce more than we need to fill them and that would take natural gas and nuclear.
7. Agreed
8. I absolutely support decentralization. This is the best hope for solar.

 

Specifically which ideas have the rich oil industry bought and buried?

 

good one, that is like getting a list of the stories national inquired killed by buying them and never releasing them, like they did the stories on Trump

oil companies hide things damaging to profits

"Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars"

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents

"The forerunners of ExxonMobil patented technologies for electric cars and low emissions vehicles as early as 1963 – even as the oil industry lobby tried to squash government funding for such research, according to a trove of newly discovered records."

 

That is why we are mining for Vanadium but even if we just repurposed auto batteries it would do the trick - look at the success of the “big battery” in South Australia
https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

Oh! Dear! You have never looked this up have you? in for a bit of a shock mate when you find out how over subsidised coal has been
Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds

Yep! And the green energy sector is investing billions in Australia - meanwhile Manchin and the Koch brothers are…….doing what for the coal industry?

Emissions from burning coal
Several principal emissions result from coal combustion:

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
• Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease
• Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the primary greenhouse gas produced from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas)
• Mercury and other heavy metals, which have been linked to both neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals
• Fly ash and bottom ash, which are residues created when power plants burn coal

In the past, fly ash was released into the air through the smokestack, but laws now require that most emissions of fly ash be captured by pollution control devices. In the United States, fly ash and bottom ash are generally stored near power plants or placed in landfills. Pollution leaching from coal ash storage and landfills into groundwater and several large impoundments of coal ash that ruptured are environmental concerns.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php

Nuclear fallout lasts a long time but mercury is forever

want to make a bet?
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-07-20-18.html
The incidence is INCREASING a across the USA
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-who-discovered-a-hidden-black-lung-epidemic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4626873/
Coal dust is coal dust whether above ground or below

it certainly does which is why the sector aims at decentralised battery installations as being ideal

Again look at the return on investment in South Australia

Look up “Carrington event”

shrugs - so many other posts I have read are negative based on outdated information and misconceptions in relation to technological advancements

 

Look up big oil and climate change

https://theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642

 

I do agree but there is a huge chasm between saying that and getting something done about it. We all know that. Taking coal fired power stations out of the energy grids will have environmental bonuses waaaay beyond reducing CO2 production

 

So you got nothing. I figured as much.

 

They seem to forget all the toxic chemicals used in the production of solar panels and batteries.

 

Well, you could always do some research and show us…

 

What a load of bubkis!!!

They imputed a "carbon tax" that THEY think "should" have been charged, and an amount THEY thought would have been "appropriate", and because that carbon tax existed only in their heads and not in reality, they called it a multi-trillion-dollar "subsidy". Furthermore, they then took some actual taxes charged, and called any undefined tax breaks as additional subsidies.

Those are not subsidies. A subsidy is when a government pays a farmer not to farm, or pays for someone's food. Subsidies flow from government to companies. There is no allegation of that going on here.

It's not just bubkis, it's an outright falsehood and a lie. Or, rather, multiple lies. Just because you think Jeff Bezos isn't paying enough in taxes doesn't make it a subsidy. Sheesh.

 

Your link on subsidies actually undermines your point by admitting that only 8% of the total is real subsidy.
The black lung cases are among deep shaft miners, not strip miners. The decline of deep shaft mining will end that problem.
Coal is central to the development plans of many countries, most notably India and China. Talk to them and get back to me.