Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The farce of government agencies and climate warriors celebrating new CO2 belching coal plants which produce “clean hydrogen” is gathering momentum.
DOE Backs Projects to Produce Hydrogen from Coal, Biomass
Mar 15, 2021
by Darrell ProctorThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the agency has awarded $2 million to four research and development (R&D) projects aimed at advancing clean-hydrogen production technologies.
The DOE’s awards on March 15 are part of a push by the Biden administration in its fight against climate change. Jennifer Granholm, the new Secretary of Energy and former Michigan governor, has said reducing carbon emissions from the energy sector, and promoting more forms of clean energy, is a goal of her department.
“One of the important ways to achieve net-zero carbon emissions is to find innovative approaches to create clean sources of energy like hydrogen,” Granholm said Monday. “With these awards, we’re leaning on some of America’s most brilliant minds to turn these ideas into real solutions—at the same time creating clean-energy jobs and reducing pollution in the air we breathe.”
…
Read more: https://www.powermag.com/doe-backs-projects-to-produce-hydrogen-from-coal-biomass/
Australia’s People’s Republic of Victoria has stolen the march on US green hydrogen efforts. Victoria’s brown coal pilot plant has actually started producing hydrogen.
Dirty coal to hydrogen: Trial aims for clean-energy solution
Japan’s Kawasaki Heavy and Australian state of Victoria plan to create first international hydrogen-supply chain.
12 Mar 2021
A Japanese-Australian venture has begun producing hydrogen from brown coal in a 500 million Australian dollars ($390m) pilot project that aims to show liquefied hydrogen can be produced commercially and exported safely overseas.
The plan is to create the first international supply chain for liquefied hydrogen and the next big step will be to ship cargo on the world’s first liquefied hydrogen carrier.
“We have the potential here to be world leaders in the production and export of hydrogen and this project is developing up that technology to do exactly that,” Australian Energy Minister Angus Taylor told the Reuters news agency on the sidelines of a ceremony marking the event.
Australia, already dominant in the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade, is hoping liquefied hydrogen will give it a greener market for its coal and gas.
…
Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/3/12/dirty-coal-to-hydrogen-trial-aims-for-clean-energy-solution
There is no requirement for any of these plants to sequester their copious CO2 emissions. Most players are so keen to kickstart the hydrogen economy by flooding the market with cheap subsidised hydrogen, they are happy to accept the CO2 emissions for now. There are vague plans to sequester the CO2 or switch to producing hydrogen using renewable electricity at some point in the future, presumably once the technology becomes economically viable.
A few green groups, zealots who actually believe CO2 emissions matter, have pointed out the allegedly green hydrogen produced by burning coal is insanely carbon intensive. But the “green hydrogen” plan is likely to be a new source of billions of dollars of government renewable energy grants, and could save the jobs of thousands of politically active coal workers, so for now the objections are being disregarded.
There are also plans to throw a few truckloads of plastic into the furnace along with thousands of tons of coal, so the green hydrogen plan is even the solution to the plastics crisis.
Soon politicians throughout the world will be subsidising the construction of new smoke belching brown coal plants, and celebrating their success at kickstarting our transition to a low carbon future.
I get it. You make the hydrogen (or ammonia) somewhere that doesn’t care about CO2 and ship it somewhere that does. Virtue signalling, wealth redistribution, and profits, profits, profits for all.
Probably. If they make the hydrogen in China, it won’t even violate the Paris Agreement.
The only problem is Australia wants to get in on the action, and Australia is registered as a developed nation therefore fully subject to Paris Agreement rules. Perhaps the plan is to bomb the Aussie economy back to the stone age, so we can be re-classified as a developing nation.
No, just keep what you are doing in Oz and within 10-15 years, you will be a developing nation. I guess that is the point of this post, which I mostly agree with, although there already is an industrial hydrogen requirement for a lot of current industry to make 1001 things.
“smoke belching”
Where?
Between ESPs and fabric filters there are not or certainly should not be any “smoke belching” coal plants.
Maybe. Some places at least probably won’t bother with the smokestack filters, if this gets going.
First of all, there is no need to reduce Man’s CO2 from fossil fuel or just breathing. It does no real harm.
Second of all, is this another “answer” to CAGW that just needs more cash to research and develop the future answer?
(Kinda’ like windmills just need a future battery development to become practical.)
Useless when it comes to CO2 goals. But, perhaps has merit in cities where local air pollution from motor vehicles is an issue. You are paying for the drop in efficiency, but for air quality, the price might be worth it to some.
The first carry vessel has been named Hindenberg.
““With these awards, we’re leaning on some of America’s most brilliant minds to turn these ideas into real solutions—at the same time creating clean-energy jobs and reducing pollution in the air we breathe.”
Imagine, it takes “America’s most brilliant minds” to do something the UK did 60 years ago with “Town Gas”. Doesn’t say much for what politicians know about the quality of American science.
Actually, this is pretty good for me. Based on their logic, I can now claim the my three (very nice) ICE cars are, in fact, GREEN. Yes, they use gasoline, and thus produce CO2, but I plan to use a green, carbon-free, fuel whenever it is available and compatible with my vehicles, and is no more expensive, mile for mile, than gasoline.
Developing that new fuel, of course, is someone else’s problem.
L like your thinking. I have two SUVs and a muscle car so I am a paragon of green virtue.
Eric,
At the DOE site, there are explanations of the production of hydrogen by two methods-
(1) Steam-Methane reforming,
(2) Partial Oxidation.
In both processes, DOE claims there is only “….a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide” produced in the 2 processes.
See http://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming
As I have just watched an explanation on ABC news media in Australia on the full production process for hydrogen from its beginning to delivery via ship to Asia (accompanied by an assurance that the new business will not permit CO2 emissions at scale,absent CCS or similar),you will appreciate my confusion.
What volume of CO2 is produced in manufacturing Hydrogen?
The last paragraph of your reference states “Petroleum use and emissions are lower than for gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicles. The only product from an FCEV tailpipe is water vapor but even with the upstream process of producing hydrogen from natural gas as well as delivering and storing it for use in FCEVs, the total greenhouse gas emissions are cut in half and petroleum is reduced over 90% compared to today’s gasoline vehicles.”
You can’t make this stuff up. Nope, April 1 is ten days away. Have these clowns NO conception of basic physics and chemistry, or are they deliberately mocking us? As a way to pump large sums of money out of the pockets of imbeciles, it’s brilliant. As a serious proposal for global energy production, it’s so far past sanity that it couldn’t see it if the Hubble telescope were the rear view mirror. How very DARE they!
Hydrogen is a road to nowhere
Hydrogen leaks could destroy the atmosphere’s ozone layer.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/03/22/could-hydrogen-leaks-affect-the-earths-ozone-layer/