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

I didn't ask you to do a damn thing. And since most of your links are left-wing propaganda I stand by my assertions.

But I will ask you to do something now, should you dare to think outside of your box just go ahead and Google The dark side of solar.

 

Already provided but ignored.

 

Oil companies pay taxes; renewables get subsidies.

 

Conspiracy theory bilge.

 

Dunning Kruger effect.

When you trying to explain to a religious person that they're religious views are not practiced the clutch on to the more.

 

Not everyone is on board.
The Green Hydrogen Swindle
Guest Blogger
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT By Paul Homewood h/t Philip Bratby From the Telegraph:

Engineers will rarely tell you something is impossible, even when your proposal is a very bad idea. Computer scientists at Stanford and MIT in the 1970s came up with a wonderful expression for this, an assignment that was technically feasible, but highly undesirable. They called it “kicking a dead whale down a beach”. The folklore compendium The Hacker’s Dictionary defines this as a “slow, difficult, and disgusting process”. Yes, you can do it like that. But you really don’t want to.

In its efforts to show the world how keenly it is embracing CO2 emission targets, our Government has left a lot of dead whales on the beach for us, and as consumers, we’ll be the ones doing the kicking.

For example, it’s not impossible to heat a home with a heat pump, but it is a very noisy, ineffective and expensive way of doing it. An electric car might be fun to drive, but it is also expensive, and because of the inferior energy density of batteries, a petrol equivalent will always be lighter and go further. Nor at the end of the day will an EV be able to boast any CO2 emissions savings, we now know, thanks to Volvo. But perhaps the greatest whale to land on our beach is hydrogen.

Every day, manufacturers announce that they’re working on some kind of hydrogen initiative.

These include our best and brightest companies, such as Rolls-Royce and JCB. The Government has a Hydrogen Strategy. The Climate Change Committee thinks hydrogen is wonderful. You may think these are all signs that it’s a good idea. But things are not what they seem. . . .

 

And again you are demanding I do YOUR homework for you - not happening

 

Really? Where?

I know you like embedding your links but unfortunately it makes them easy to miss

 

Do Oil Companies Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes? - Tax ...
https://taxfoundation.org › do-oil-companies-pay-their-...

Mar 14, 2012 — That figure also doesn't count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 ...

 

Lols!
“guest blogger” any bets on this is a paid shill from a fossil fuel fund

 

Already addressed this

it is about taxes NOT subsidies

 

Many so-called subsidies for oil companies are in fact tax breaks, so this is quite germane.

 

You would lose.
Andrew Orlowski - The Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk › authors › ak-ao › andrew...

Andrew Orlowski is a technology journalist who writes a weekly Telegraph column every Monday. He founded the research network Think of X and previously ...

 

.???

Guest Blogger
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT By Paul Homewood h/t Philip Bratby From the Telegraph:

 

If you would read then you would not be confused.
By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

From the Telegraph:


Engineers will rarely tell you something is impossible, even when your proposal is a very bad idea. Computer scientists at Stanford and MIT in the 1970s came up with a wonderful expression for this, an assignment that was technically feasible, but highly undesirable. They called it “kicking a dead whale down a beach”. The folklore compendium The Hacker’s Dictionary defines this as a “slow, difficult, and disgusting process”. Yes, you can do it like that. But you really don’t want to.

In its efforts to show the world how keenly it is embracing CO2 emission targets, our Government has left a lot of dead whales on the beach for us, and as consumers, we’ll be the ones doing the kicking.

For example, it’s not impossible to heat a home with a heat pump, but it is a very noisy, ineffective and expensive way of doing it. An electric car might be fun to drive, but it is also expensive, and because of the inferior energy density of batteries, a petrol equivalent will always be lighter and go further. Nor at the end of the day will an EV be able to boast any CO2 emissions savings, we now know, thanks to Volvo. But perhaps the greatest whale to land on our beach is hydrogen.

Every day, manufacturers announce that they’re working on some kind of hydrogen initiative.

These include our best and brightest companies, such as Rolls-Royce and JCB. The Government has a Hydrogen Strategy. The Climate Change Committee thinks hydrogen is wonderful. You may think these are all signs that it’s a good idea. But things are not what they seem.

To replace gas boilers with hydrogen boilers requires thousands of miles of new, much thicker, high-pressure pipes. Last year, Lord Martin Callanan, the energy minister, candidly described the plans to replace our gas boilers with hydrogen boilers “as pretty much impossible”.

Hydrogen has two big problems which turn any project into a dead whale exercise.

The first is that pure hydrogen doesn’t exist – it’s both everywhere and nowhere. We must generate all the hydrogen we can then use, and this requires a lot of energy. This is fine when the output of the process is something very valuable to us, such as fertiliser. But less so when the output of the process must compete with much cheaper commodities, as it must in an energy market.

Secondly, hydrogen’s intrinsic physical properties create a whole range of unique problems. It’s a tiny atom that easily escapes confinement. Keeping it captive for storage is expensive, and moving it around safely even more so, because in liquid form it must be very cold.

Hydrogen advocates tend to shrug off these issues – solving them will be someone else’s problem, they reckon. Individually, none of these factors make hydrogen as an energy carrier or storer impossible, but the whale-like properties are becoming harder to ignore.

To replace gas boilers with hydrogen boilers requires thousands of miles of new, much thicker, high-pressure pipes. Last year, Lord Martin Callanan, the energy minister, candidly described the plans to replace our gas boilers with hydrogen boilers “as pretty much impossible”.

Wrong, m’Lud. It’s not impossible – it’s just a supremely bad idea. And when hydrogen explodes, it is quite spectacular. Right on cue, Australia’s first hydrogen carrying ship set sail for Japan this year, and burst into flames on its maiden voyage.

Again, hydrogen powered transport is not impossible, it’s just hampered by reality. Liquified hydrogen may be as light as petrol or kerosene, but keeping it at -257C requires much heavier apparatus. Converting a two engine turboprop from kerosene to hydrogen, I noted here recently, increases the weight of the engine from two tonnes to 13 tonnes.

As for storage, the story is little better. Wind often generates electricity when it is not needed (and doesn’t generate it when it is needed). So when the wind is blowing, the hydrogen lobby argues, we can create “green hydrogen” using electrolysis. These electrolysers are expensive, and sensitive, and switching them on intermittently to produce the mythical green hydrogen isn’t economic.

So green hydrogen is really not one, but two dead whales, engaged in a gruesome act of congress.

In his devastating assessment of the Government’s energy paper, Prof Dieter Helm calls it a “lobbyist’s utopia”. Prof Helm, an energy expert, describes how rent-seekers “[react] to each problem… by inventing another intervention. Each has unintended consequences, and these unintended consequences need more ‘fixes’”. That’s green hydrogen in a nutshell.

Green hydrogen may be generated reliably and cheaply using high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors (HTGRs), a technology the Japanese have been refining for two decades. Japan’s first HTGR opened in 1997, but incredibly, was out of commission for a decade.

The history of nuclear energy is full of such stories, of untapped potential, and of avenues not explored. Our own Government tepidly hopes for a “HTGR demonstration by the early 2030s at the latest.” But even with a fleet of HTGRs generating hydrogen, the nasty stuff still needs to be stored and moved, and those costs haven’t gone away. Using hydrogen remains the worst way of doing almost anything.

Special interest groups however have discovered that the magic words “net zero” have the same incantatory power as “Open Sesame!”. In Arabian Nights, the phrase opened up a cave full of treasure. Here, they open up an unlimited trove of research grants and subsidies, and tap into abundant buckets of ill-directed “green” capital. The dead whale is never removed from the beach – and perhaps that’s the point.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/16/great-hydrogen-swindle-green-gas-not-seems/

 

Of course I did, you think I just made up what I said by randomly picking stuff out of my butt? The real question is did you open it, because they openly admitted they were labeling it a "subsidy" if there was no bs carbon tax when they thought there should have been.

A tax break is not a subsidy.

A non-existent tax is not a subsidy, no matter how much you think that tax should exist.

If the government is not giving money to oil companies to do or not do something, it's NOT a subsidy. If they reduce gas taxes, not a subsidy. If they have a gas tax holiday, not a subsidy. Only if they credit a NEGATIVE gas tax does it become a subsidy.

Yet another thing you insane lefties are pushing that flies in the face of common sense. And math.

 

Oil companies, as I have proven, get subsidies, kickbacks, tax write off and all the other hand outs the can possibly squeeze off the government

AND you still have not proven you point that renewables get a financial advantage over fossil fuels

 

Actually, you haven't proven anything except that people opposed to fossil fuels believe they get money they shouldn't get.
I made no claim about relative financial advantage. I do claim renewables are not viable without subsidies.

 

My bad - looked like an advertisement

But he is talking in the past here. He is loading the negatives and also confining his complaints to, mostly the UK.
There is big money investing in this
https://h2council.com.au/

Buried in the piece below is the announcement that the Saudis are also looking at green hydrogen

https://www.ft.com/content/0d14e8e9-63a1-400b-81af-e705d6eaaba9

The Saudi government knows the oil will not last forever

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-start-building-green-hydrogen-plant-in-neom

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityi...uel-cell-based-transport-sustainable-jet-fuel

 

Oh! I proved it and I am not about to go on another deep dive into this just because you want to shift goal posts

 

Sigh!!

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

 

Y'all do know even as we argue over hydrogen the Earth is busy producing more oil it does not stop producing oil.

Drill baby drill!!! And fill me up at the pump the hell with those green weenie electric cars.

 

Yup, and all the dead kids in the Congo who had to mine the cobalt for it.... But hey, these are also the abortion after birth crowd, so.....

 

Trying to ignore the hundreds of millions spent, funding over a hundred organisations??

 

We shall see.