Great comment, Tucos's Child. Thanks for reading and posting. I listened to 2 days of testimony this week on the EPA proposed rules on fossil fuel power generation, and almost every person testifying said that EPA should drop their support of hydrogen and CCS because they are unproven and dangerous technologies. Of course, they supported EPAs rules that will eliminate coal and nat gas generation. Ed
None of this addresses the fact that hydrogen can permeate solid steel, making it brittle and causing it to fracture. No matter how you produce it, transporting and storing hydrogen is an absolute nightmare and no one has any plausible explanations as to how it could be done commercially at scale.
The companies don't care because leaked hydrogen means consumers must buy more hydrogen, and broken equipment forces them to buy new equipment. It's a capitalist's wet dream. Unclear how "sustainable" it is, though.
Thanks for the comment, blox. You are correct--there are a lot of problems with transporting and storing hydrogen (it takes more space to store it). I'm planning another article on these problems. Ed
Although hydrogen has a high energy density, more so than fossil:
Hydrogen : 142 MJ/kg
Diesel/gas : 45-46 MJ/kg
Unfortunately, the energy to produce, compress, and liquify 1 kg of hydrogen is far greater than it's energy content, so huge subsidies would be needed to support that, just like the solar and wind fiascos, which are dependent on fossil anyway.
This podcast was very illuminating on the sham that is hydrodgen. Maybe it makes sense in a world where abundant, carbon free nuclear energy results massive electricity surpluses, but we don't live in that world.
Thanks for reading the article on hydrogen and for the comments, PenguinEmpireReports. Great data. You are absolutely correct that most or all of the subsidies that are available as a result of the comically misnamed Inflation Reduction Act make no economic sense at all. The resource misallocations that result will cause economic problems for decades. Welcome to "Thoughts about Energy and Economics." Ed
Great comment, Tucos's Child. Thanks for reading and posting. I listened to 2 days of testimony this week on the EPA proposed rules on fossil fuel power generation, and almost every person testifying said that EPA should drop their support of hydrogen and CCS because they are unproven and dangerous technologies. Of course, they supported EPAs rules that will eliminate coal and nat gas generation. Ed
None of this addresses the fact that hydrogen can permeate solid steel, making it brittle and causing it to fracture. No matter how you produce it, transporting and storing hydrogen is an absolute nightmare and no one has any plausible explanations as to how it could be done commercially at scale.
The companies don't care because leaked hydrogen means consumers must buy more hydrogen, and broken equipment forces them to buy new equipment. It's a capitalist's wet dream. Unclear how "sustainable" it is, though.
Thanks for the comment, blox. You are correct--there are a lot of problems with transporting and storing hydrogen (it takes more space to store it). I'm planning another article on these problems. Ed
The Hydrogen Hype Equals Praying to a False God
Although hydrogen has a high energy density, more so than fossil:
Hydrogen : 142 MJ/kg
Diesel/gas : 45-46 MJ/kg
Unfortunately, the energy to produce, compress, and liquify 1 kg of hydrogen is far greater than it's energy content, so huge subsidies would be needed to support that, just like the solar and wind fiascos, which are dependent on fossil anyway.
On the other hand:
Nuclear, E=mc^2, U-235, : 79,390,000 MJ/kg
Here's what Uncle Sam will pay for Hydrogen: 250%-800% of the price of natural gas;
https://eagleforge1.substack.com/p/money-on-fire-uncle-sam-set-to-pay
Thanks for the data, PenguinEmpireReports. Great Substack article. Thanks for sending the link. Ed
Thank you.
The Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics mean nothing to these people, "follow the money"
Great link, thank you.
This podcast was very illuminating on the sham that is hydrodgen. Maybe it makes sense in a world where abundant, carbon free nuclear energy results massive electricity surpluses, but we don't live in that world.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/a-canada-germany-hydrogen-scandal/id1516526694?i=1000583475301
Thanks for sending that link, Nick. I will check it out. Ed
Good Read!
Thanks for reading the article on hydrogen and for the comments, PenguinEmpireReports. Great data. You are absolutely correct that most or all of the subsidies that are available as a result of the comically misnamed Inflation Reduction Act make no economic sense at all. The resource misallocations that result will cause economic problems for decades. Welcome to "Thoughts about Energy and Economics." Ed
I look forward to reading more. Keep it up.
Will do. My latest article, "Grid operators and 21 states say to EPA: STOP NEW POWER REGS!" is getting a lot of views and comments. Ed