Headline is a lie. The plan for hydrogen that these people want isn’t made by electric cracking from water, but is made by extracting it from natural gas, which releases CO2. They have a fantasy of being able to carbon-capture it.
You know why you haven’t heard much about this tech?
Because nobody does it. It’s not economical. It’s worthless. It only exists to greenwash the natural gas industry, and so anti-environmentalist petrochemical-industry chuds can claim they don’t hate they environment, they just hate battery tech and the magic technology fairy will make this alternative work with them.
You’re talking about BLUE hydrogen (which is indeed the one the fossil fuel industry is trying to hawk). Blue/grey/brown hydrogen is pointless, but GREEN hydrogen is perfectly emission-free as long as the original source of the energy is emission-free. The reason people don’t hear about it is because of concentrated major media ownership, most likely.
Whenever someone talks about hydrogen fuel cells, it’s best to always check if they’re talking about the green kind, specifically. Articles like this are suspicious when they don’t mention what kind of source is used for the fuel cell.
For all intents and purposes, green hydrogen basically doesn’t exist.
As of 2021, green hydrogen accounted for less than 0.04% of total hydrogen production.[6] Its cost relative to hydrogen derived from fossil fuels is the main reason green hydrogen is in less demand.[7] For example, hydrogen produced by electrolysis powered by solar power was about 25 times more expensive than that derived from hydrocarbons in 2018.[8]
Not clear on the point of this post. Maybe you started it before I added the lines at the end and a slight clarification, but even then, my main point was about how we need to know which form of hydrogen it is. Do you not think if people were better informed about the issues, they might be able to meaningfully object to where the money’s been put so far and demand it be put on the right horse? Lumping viable options in with bad ones helps nobody.
Headline is a lie. The plan for hydrogen that these people want isn’t made by electric cracking from water, but is made by extracting it from natural gas, which releases CO2. They have a fantasy of being able to carbon-capture it.
You know why you haven’t heard much about this tech?
Because nobody does it. It’s not economical. It’s worthless. It only exists to greenwash the natural gas industry, and so anti-environmentalist petrochemical-industry chuds can claim they don’t hate they environment, they just hate battery tech and the magic technology fairy will make this alternative work with them.
You’re talking about BLUE hydrogen (which is indeed the one the fossil fuel industry is trying to hawk). Blue/grey/brown hydrogen is pointless, but GREEN hydrogen is perfectly emission-free as long as the original source of the energy is emission-free. The reason people don’t hear about it is because of concentrated major media ownership, most likely.
Whenever someone talks about hydrogen fuel cells, it’s best to always check if they’re talking about the green kind, specifically. Articles like this are suspicious when they don’t mention what kind of source is used for the fuel cell.
For all intents and purposes, green hydrogen basically doesn’t exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen
emphasis mine.
Not clear on the point of this post. Maybe you started it before I added the lines at the end and a slight clarification, but even then, my main point was about how we need to know which form of hydrogen it is. Do you not think if people were better informed about the issues, they might be able to meaningfully object to where the money’s been put so far and demand it be put on the right horse? Lumping viable options in with bad ones helps nobody.