- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stated at CERAWeek: Hydrogen adoption will cost Europe, US more than $1 trillion
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:49 pm to ragincajun03
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:49 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
the world would be better off it were to focus on reducing carbon emissions from oil and gas
Or just keep living like we are living and do nothing. New technologies will continue to evolve and the situation will solve itself.
The idea that some new technology won't be developed, or an existing technology refined, in the next 50 years that solves this "problem" is almost laughable.
0
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:50 pm to ragincajun03
Hydrogen is smart…sure we’re going thar direction.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:50 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
K. We've spent no doubt more than that on oil infrastructure.
Which we already have.
Youre talking about doubling more spending.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:53 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Hilarious thing is that while electrolysis of water is possible, it’s not really energy efficient as a storage medium.
Almost all industrial hydrogen is made in a process using natural gas as a substrate.
There are a lot of Texas wind and solar farms producing H2 and O2 from electrolysis. The H2 is used downstream in the Haber–Bosch process to produce ammonia which is used further downstream for several products, especially fertilizer. This is a good use of wind and solar to make hydrogen IMO. IDK what they are using the O2 for but I'm sure there is a market.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:01 pm to GumboPot
Oh I know it’s done.
It’s just not widespread because you lose 20% of the energy you put in out of the gate, causing folks looking to produce hydrogen so do with natural gas. Obviously electrolysis has a lower barrier of entry so that’s why you see it at all.
Once you get to the 40% energy loss on top of that even in a fuel cell you start to get to hydrogen not really being a good storage medium for energy.
Better to invest in improved battery techs.
It’s just not widespread because you lose 20% of the energy you put in out of the gate, causing folks looking to produce hydrogen so do with natural gas. Obviously electrolysis has a lower barrier of entry so that’s why you see it at all.
Once you get to the 40% energy loss on top of that even in a fuel cell you start to get to hydrogen not really being a good storage medium for energy.
Better to invest in improved battery techs.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:01 pm to GumboPot
quote:
There are a lot of Texas wind and solar farms producing H2 and O2 from electrolysis. The H2 is used downstream in the Haber–Bosch process to produce ammonia which is used further downstream for several products, especially fertilizer. This is a good use of wind and solar to make hydrogen IMO. IDK what they are using the O2 for but I'm sure there is a market.
There's plenty of naturally occurring hydrogen found underground that's just beginning to be tapped.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:04 pm to Diseasefreeforall
quote:
There's plenty of naturally occurring hydrogen found underground that's just beginning to be tapped.
Interesting. I did not know about these reservoirs.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:30 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
In contrast, Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser at the same conference said the world would be better off it were to focus on reducing carbon emissions from oil and gas rather than shift to other energy sources and technologies.
No shite sherlock. O&G is why you guys aren't a wasteland.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:31 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Means the energy in units of btu or joules per bbl of oil versus the equivalent amount of energy from H2.
Gotcha thanks
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:34 pm to GumboPot
quote:I don't have a problem with nuclear, but it is not a complete solution. We know how to harness and use the energy from plenty of sources, and we should use each where it makes sense.
Need more nuclear.
The strong nuclear force between protons is 175 pounds. We know how to harness and use that energy. The biggest impediment to accessing that energy is us.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:36 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Interesting. I did not know about these reservoirs.
A new gold rush | There are now 40 companies searching for natural hydrogen deposits — up from ten in 2020
Hydrogen Insight
Posted on 3/18/24 at 3:01 pm to BilbeauTBaggins
quote:
Hydrogen is absolutely the way of the future.
Hydrogen will be something like 3-5x more expensive than gasoline for propelling your vehicle.
I don't understand this idea of regressive taxes on the poor and working class in the name of Clean Energy
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:58 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
"Despite its significant long term potential, hydrogen still costs in the range of $200 to $400 per barrel of oil equivalent, while oil and gas remain much cheaper."
CH4 is the very next best thing to hydrogen and it's cheap.
Hydrogen may work when we have a lot of nuclear reactors to make it. Electrolysis gets a lot more efficient when the water is extremely hot which is something reactors can easily provide.
I'm not so worried about hydrogen distribution since we did it successfully back in the mid 1800's in the form of coal gas or Town gas.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 6:04 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Which we already have.
Youre talking about doubling more spending
We will just print the money so it's really not a problem.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 6:05 pm to billjamin
quote:
quote:
Hydrogen is absolutely the way of the future.
Not anytime soon. It's incredibly difficult to transport. We can barely keep our natural gas infrastructure form blowing up too many houses. A switch to hydrogen will require actual O&M, which no one really likes to do.
My loft in Manhattan still had the old gas light pipes in it. It was just 3/8" black iron. Town gas or coal gas was a mixture of CO and hydrogen and had extensive use from the 1850's until the mid 1950's. The natural gas lines arrived in NYC in the 50's and that was the end of that.
Coal gas was still used for cooking and heating until then.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 6:11 pm to BilbeauTBaggins
quote:
I do enjoy the idea of electric vehicles, but I know that it's not feasible for every part of the US. Hydrogen is absolutely the way of the future.
I’ve long been a believer in hydrogen IF it turns out that we actually need to reduce CO2 emissions. I’m still skeptical about that, though, which is why I think we should be investing in technology, not in implementation.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 6:53 pm to Penrod
The answer is not hydrogen vehicles.
The answer is hydrogen driving turbines at charging stations for evs across the country.
Dont need to upgrade existing electrical grids and each “gas station” is fully independent.
The answer is hydrogen driving turbines at charging stations for evs across the country.
Dont need to upgrade existing electrical grids and each “gas station” is fully independent.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 6:56 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
The answer is hydrogen driving turbines at charging stations for evs across the country.
That’s an interesting point. I have not seen an analysis, though.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 6:59 pm to Penrod
Me either, just thinking from a transition standpoint.
It’s easier to transition to “mostly evs” with a side of diesel for towing when people can charge at home and existing infrastructure while hydrogen-fueled charging “gas stations” are developed, as opposed to changing to a 4th vehicle fuel with a mix of petrol, electric, and hydrogen vehicles all on the road
It’s easier to transition to “mostly evs” with a side of diesel for towing when people can charge at home and existing infrastructure while hydrogen-fueled charging “gas stations” are developed, as opposed to changing to a 4th vehicle fuel with a mix of petrol, electric, and hydrogen vehicles all on the road
Posted on 3/18/24 at 7:08 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
K. We've spent no doubt more than that on oil infrastructure.
The US government has allowed private companies to, because of the profit incentive to do so. Besides, the Green new deal had proposed budget of twice this, so I’m not sure how this figure is reasonable.
quote:
A Saudi oil company CEO doesn't want to see the world shift away from oil? Here's my shocked face
He works for the state. And they will be vastly better off than almost any country in the world putting artificial limitations on their energy production, seeing as they have an abundant and easily attainable supply.
But no need to clutter your brain with any of these practical considerations, the end sounds so good.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News