Renewables capacity needs to increase substantially and hydrogen and derivatives need an eight-fold increase to meet a Pathway to Net Zero (PNZ) by 2050, according to DNV’s Energy Transition Outlook 2023 report.
Renewables capacity needs to increase substantially and hydrogen and derivatives need an eight-fold increase to meet a Pathway to Net Zero (PNZ) by 2050, according to DNV’s Energy Transition Outlook 2023 report.
Right now Hydrogen generation is near as makes no difference all performed by burning fossil fuels, so it’s easy to see why oil companies would want to concentrate on this as a technology. Your posts are an eclectic mix of hydrogen related news and nothing else, which makes me wonder what your position is in this space?
Electricity, until recently, included nearly zero wind or solar energy. This type of accusation is pretty much identical to the accusation that BEVs are just an extension of coal power.
There is no secret agenda here. Hydrogen is just flat-out the green fuel of the future. BEV fanatics are just being upset that it is not their favored idea.
As a bit or a nerd and environmentalist, I’ve had solar panels for more than 20 years. My personal electrical consumption has been entirely renewable for all of that time, and many thousands of kWh have been fed back into the grid.
Compressed hydrogen or liquid hydrogen are simply not a realistic alternative to BEVs with any current or emerging technology.
Hydrogen may have a place in future, and I agree there is no panacea, but at the moment Hydrogen is an technology looking for a purpose.
My main question again… what is your skill set and position in renewables and the hydrogen industry? Just a fan or do you work in the sector?
If you are both a nerd and environmentalist, you’d also know people said the same thing about BEVs just a decade ago. You’re being closer to a Luddite than an actual nerd.
Any chance of you answering my actual question?
If you must know, I am a fan of hydrogen. But the issue is that you are not asking in good faith. It’s mostly coming from the perspective of a closed-minded BEV fanatic who thinks only BEVs can exist in the future.
You couldn’t be further from the truth, I have a 24 year old diesel and my partner a 20year old petrol car. Our low yearly mileage means the energy it would take to recycle our cars and create new ones is not worth the switch right now.
As for the bad faith I just have a lot of knowledge about the current research into Hydrogen fuelled transport and while it may work for very large vehicles I don’t believe it’s practical or safe for cars in my lifetime.
I also know there is a greenwashing effort going into “eFuels” made with Hydrogen.
What is your main reason the prefer HEVs/FCEVs to BEVs?
The you must realize that BEVs carry too much of an upfront penalty to make sense. Clearly, you are sticking with ICE vehicles because of that.
Millions of people will never be in a position to own one either. No matter what you think, you will have to accept the existence of hydrogen cars for those people.
There is no real effort to push e-fuels or whatever as a way to maintain fossil fuels. It is way too expensive for that.
In the end, FCEVs will as cheap to own as ICE cars, and just as practical. It’s pretty self evident that BEVs aren’t competitive against that.
They do carry an upfront penalty, but offset that by being almost 100% recyclable. I can buy an 2nd hand electric car for less than I can sell my 24yr old truck, so they are cheap enough for most people now.
As the ICE stock is replaced by BEVs we’ll get to majority EVs in the next 10ish years. If the Hydrogen Hulx could replace mine I might get one, but I couldn’t fuel It around here or at home, so it’s not practical when compared to a BEV.