When two scientists went looking for fossil fuels beneath the ground of northeastern France, they did not expect to discover something which could supercharge efforts to tackle the climate crisis.
When two scientists went looking for fossil fuels beneath the ground of northeastern France, they did not expect to discover something which could supercharge efforts to tackle the climate crisis.
It’s not zero emissions, that’s process dependent, not fuel dependent. If you burn it, it will generate other emissions (oxides of nitrogen) alongside the water vapour. Other processes will only emit water. But you can’t call a combustible fuel zero emissions as a blanket statement.
Not clear?? How about this, until it’s proven to self-regenerate it’s not renewable. Climate change isn’t going to stop on hopes and wishes.
You cannot categorically call anything truly zero emissions. Even BEVs have things like tire dust to worry about. For practical purposes, naturally occurring hydrogen would be a zero emissions fuel.
No one is saying that this is the solution. It is part of a large number of hydrogen sources that can help solve climate change.
I can call BEVs zero emissions EVs, the process of converting electric power to motion has no emissions. You’re grasping at straws pulling in tire dust, which any hydrogen vehicles would also have.
Yes, hydrogen COULD help, but why are we trying to mine more non-renewable fuels to get it? To stop polluting the planet due to our use of non-renewables we’re going to… use MORE non-renewables?
Solar cost is plummeting, let’s capitalize on that to generate green hydrogen, if the efficiency makes sense. Otherwise, let’s leave whatever is in the ground in the ground.
It is not a fossil fuel. It is geological hydrogen.
Oh, right, and it’s not “methane” it’s “natural gas”. Come on, that’s transparently obvious green washing.
Regardless of the fuel, if you dig it up it’s not a renewable resource.
It is zero emissions.
It is not clear if it is non-renewable. Because of how it forms, it could self-regenerate. It is closer to geothermal than fossil fuels.
It’s not zero emissions, that’s process dependent, not fuel dependent. If you burn it, it will generate other emissions (oxides of nitrogen) alongside the water vapour. Other processes will only emit water. But you can’t call a combustible fuel zero emissions as a blanket statement.
Not clear?? How about this, until it’s proven to self-regenerate it’s not renewable. Climate change isn’t going to stop on hopes and wishes.
You cannot categorically call anything truly zero emissions. Even BEVs have things like tire dust to worry about. For practical purposes, naturally occurring hydrogen would be a zero emissions fuel.
No one is saying that this is the solution. It is part of a large number of hydrogen sources that can help solve climate change.
I can call BEVs zero emissions EVs, the process of converting electric power to motion has no emissions. You’re grasping at straws pulling in tire dust, which any hydrogen vehicles would also have.
Yes, hydrogen COULD help, but why are we trying to mine more non-renewable fuels to get it? To stop polluting the planet due to our use of non-renewables we’re going to… use MORE non-renewables?
Solar cost is plummeting, let’s capitalize on that to generate green hydrogen, if the efficiency makes sense. Otherwise, let’s leave whatever is in the ground in the ground.
That’s the point. There’s no true zero emissions vehicle. A hydrogen car, running on zero emissions hydrogen, would also be zero emissions.
No one is suggesting this is the only way. This is just another zero emissions form of hydrogen.
Green hydrogen is likely going to be the main source of hydrogen. It won’t be the only one.