Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(35,128 posts)
5. Oh, trust me, I have plenty of them, including lots and lots of stuff in the scientific literature. Note that the...
Fri Nov 15, 2024, 07:45 PM
Nov 2024

...scam is still a trivial outgrowth of fossil fuel marketing, has nothing to do with anything other than the rebranding of fossil fuels as "green," and, as the 2024 IEA World Energy Outlook reports in uncertain terms, a scheme to waste energy, at least if one can tell if 5 will still be less than 7 "by 2050." The big "hydrogen miracle" that's been the object of endless horseshit for half a century has finally, after being (correctly, I think) ignored by the IEA for 3 decades suddenly shows up, of course, "by 2050."




IEA World Energy Outlook 2024

Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.

At the risk of seeing yet another repeat of a video from China displayed dishonestly with pictures of solar cells, or another repeat of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy involving Secretary Granholm, the last row in the column, which shows zero hydrogen "energy" in 2024, and predicts, 1 Exajoules out of 676 "by 2030" and 1 Exajoule out of 682 (at a cost of 2 Exajoules of primary energy, a 29% loss) "by 2035," and 2 Exajoules out of 691 Exajoules (at a cost of 3 Exajoules, a 33% loss) "by 2040" and 5 exajoules out of 722 (at a cost of 7 Exajoules, a 29% loss) "by 2050."

Note that in 2050, if the IEA soothsaying holds up, it appears that the IEA is referring to captive hydrogen, and only 2040 will anybody seriously be utilizing hydrogen as a fuel on any scale that matters, this at enormous risk, since the scam is dangerous.

The most recent major hydrogen plant explosion was at, unsurprisingly, a dangerous fossil fuel plant.

As for the contempt expressed for the 60 people whose homes were damaged, remarking that they weren't killed reflects a kind of moral indifference to my way of thinking. The plant is a small piece of shit plant, designed to produce 700 kg of hydrogen a day, by consuming thermodynamically degraded electricity on the North Carolina grid, and not a plant representing anything like a vast industrial scale plant.

Longview, NC H2One plant

I'm not saying people can't make money running this scam, clearly they can and so, hence all the greenwashing ads we see for hydrogen "energy." This slick ads surely cost money to make.

In my clearly and oft stated and unshakable opinion, anyone who believes or pushes this horseshit about "green hydrogen" is either gullible, badly educated, or overtly dishonest.

Hydrogen is a dirty (and dangerous) fuel.

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.

Fuel cell bus in California destroyed after explosion during refuelling.

The fuel cell bus, which didn't last particularly long involved the squandering of roughly 1 million dollars, not even counting the clean up that will surely be necessary of the chemotoxic fluorocarbons, once the fluoropolymers in the fuel cells are accounted for.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Explosion at hydrogen fue...»Reply #5