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
21182 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
81 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
29148 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
4304 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
646 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
5511 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 DavidTheGnome
Monroe
Member since Apr 2015
29148 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:29 pm to
quote:

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)




And is that the current price of hydrogen or a projected future price once production ramps up significantly? Because if current prices it's meaningless, the price will no doubt drop considerably.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118691 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 GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118691 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:33 pm to
quote:

We've spent no doubt more than that on oil infrastructure.



Because O&G infrastructure can pay for itself and more as as O&G is brought to market.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118691 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:34 pm to
quote:

Hydrogen is absolutely the way of the future.




Possibly for fuel cells. Not ICE.
Posted by lowhound
Effie
Member since Aug 2014
7508 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 GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118691 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

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?


Means the energy in units of btu or joules per bbl of oil versus the equivalent amount of energy from H2.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
12395 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:38 pm to
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.
Posted by TigerHornII
Member since Feb 2021
285 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 GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118691 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

Green energy lobby trying to stymie a potentially good source of cheap green energy.


Green energy is trying to make O&G more expensive so they can compete. These alternative energy sources do not become economically viable until O&G becomes more expensive.

And the on the CCS front, the O&G industry played the climate change nuts. The O&G industry got the climate change nuts to lobby on their behalf lowering the cost basis of industry using O&G if they can sequester their emissions and take advantage of the tax credits (from the Inflation Reduction Act Biden signed).
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28703 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

I'd love to know the cost of upgrading the entire US grid to support an electric car system.
Electric vehicles are an upgrade to the grid. Power tends to be used where people are, and cars tend to be parked where people are. The upgrades required to make EVs function as grid-attached storage are relatively inexpensive, and has the very real potential to reduce the peak demand from the grid. Far cheaper than building out hydrogen infrastructure.
quote:

Hydrogen is absolutely the way of the future.
Hydrogen has its use cases, but fuel for passenger vehicles is absolutely not one of them.
Posted by SantaFe
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2019
6529 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 GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118691 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:46 pm to
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 by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51896 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 Turbeauxdog
Member since Aug 2004
23157 posts
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:48 pm to
quote:

K. We've spent no doubt more than that on oil infrastructure.


No, the economic utility of oil paid for the infrastructure. In contrast you will have to spend a trillion above the economic utility (which is probably already negative) for hydrogen.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next 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