Started By
Message

Stated at CERAWeek: Hydrogen adoption will cost Europe, US more than $1 trillion

Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:15 pm
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
21641 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:15 pm
quote:

HOUSTON, March 18 (Reuters) - Europe and the U.S. will have to spend in excess of $1 trillion for building infrastructure to enable widespread use of hydrogen fuel, an executive at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (7011.T), said on Monday.

A wholesale move to hydrogen will need significant new demand, which could only come with investments in infrastructure to reduce the cost. European and U.S. governments will have to make that investment, Emmanouil Kakaras, an executive vice president at Mitsubishi said in an interview on the sidelines of CERAWeek by S&P Global energy conference.

"If you count the funding to bridge the gap, you will easily get to $1 trillion," said Kakaras.

European governments have committed $750 billion and with the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act funding for hydrogen projects, it could be enough to make the transition to clean fuels from fossil fuels happen, he said.

New infrastructure for the use of hydrogen in Europe will spur wider adoption by 2035, and if combined with carbon capture and storage in the U.S. to offset greenhouse gas emissions, the energy transition could be realized, he said.

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.

"The current transition strategy is visibly failing on most fronts," said Nasser. "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."


LINK /
Posted by BlueChips
Member since Aug 2016
85 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:19 pm to
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.
This is the way, but we have too many ignorant people who listen to the radical left NGOs and think carbon capture will kill the fish in their lakes.
Posted by DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
29541 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:20 pm to
K. We've spent no doubt more than that on oil infrastructure.


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.


A Saudi oil company CEO doesn't want to see the world shift away from oil? Here's my shocked face
This post was edited on 3/18/24 at 1:22 pm
Posted by BilbeauTBaggins
probably stuck in traffic
Member since May 2021
4932 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:21 pm to
I'd love to know the cost of upgrading the entire US grid to support an electric car system. 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.
Posted by CSinLC
Member since May 2018
712 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:21 pm to
How much of that will the USA pay by being part of some envronmental treaty?
Posted by crazyLSUstudent
391 miles away from Tiger Stadium
Member since Mar 2012
5544 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:26 pm to
quote:

Despite its significant long term potential, hydrogen still costs in the range of $200 to $400 per barrel of oil equivalent


What does this mean? Is it saying the equivalent energy you get from a barrel of oil that you would get from a “barrel” of hydrogen is the same or are we just comparing volumes? Because hydrogen at $200/barrel is less expensive on a $/mj basis when compared to today’s price for a barrel of oil ($86.96)
This post was edited on 3/18/24 at 1:28 pm
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119585 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:32 pm to
quote:

Hydrogen adoption will cost Europe, US more than $1 trillion


Forget the money. Try the physics hurdle.
Posted by lowhound
Effie
Member since Aug 2014
7650 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:37 pm to
It wouldn't cost the US a dime if the government allowed free enterprise to work instead of picking winners and losers, like with solar, wind, and battery powered vehicles. Green energy lobby trying to stymie a potentially good source of cheap green energy.
This post was edited on 3/18/24 at 1:38 pm
Posted by TigerHornII
Member since Feb 2021
360 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:42 pm to
FWIW, this is comparable to or probably even less than the collective costs of new battery factories and charging stations for BEVs, which is also infrastructue, and that does not include power grid upgrades that will also be needed. The article is just throwing a big number at you in the absence of anything to compare it to for the OMYGAWD reaction it will draw.

I'll leave the hydrogen vs BEV vs fossil debate alone for now, but as with most things technological, there is no one silver bullet. We will probably have a mix of techs in the end.
Posted by SantaFe
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2019
6661 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:44 pm to
I don’t believe that people truly understand what it would take to build a nation wide hydrogen infrastructure. I don’t believe that the average person understands the mechanics of the hydrogen atom.
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51958 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:47 pm to
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.
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
27403 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:49 pm to
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.
Posted by Gaston
Dirty Coast
Member since Aug 2008
39200 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:50 pm to
Hydrogen is smart…sure we’re going thar direction.
Posted by idlewatcher
County Jail
Member since Jan 2012
79672 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 2:30 pm to
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 by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
20060 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:58 pm to
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 by PGAOLDBawNeVaBroke
Member since Dec 2023
958 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 8:33 pm to
$9.5 Trillion already spent and all this crap only makes up 4% of energy supply. Total joke.
Posted by Saunson69
Member since May 2023
2032 posts
Posted on 3/19/24 at 1:12 am to
Also, majority of Hydrogen projects will be in Louisiana btwn BR and NOLA or SE Texas, so it is a benefit to the state. It will create jobs.
This post was edited on 3/19/24 at 2:07 am
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99850 posts
Posted on 3/19/24 at 7:05 am to
Chasing the shiny baubles while the fricking answer (nuclear) is right there.
Posted by Zarkinletch416
Deep in the Heart of Texas
Member since Jan 2020
8492 posts
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:15 am to
Hydrogen gas powered cars = rolling bombs. Get in a severe wreck in one of those babies and if the initial blunt force trauma doesn't get you that exploding hydrogen tank surely will.

Global Warming - Climate Change is a population control gimmick.


Posted by the4thgen
Dallas, tx
Member since Sep 2010
1786 posts
Posted on 3/19/24 at 1:20 pm to
Or we should be doing both bolstering of the O and G industry as well as adding in additional energy options.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram