Hydrogen bubbles forming on the negative terminal of a battery in a glass of salt water. Do not try this at home - if you do this for more than a few seconds, things can get very messy, as the battery package can rapidly corrode and rupture, and spill chemical nasties. The salt contaminated battery is also a fire hazard.

The Guardian Finally Wakes Up to the Climate Friendly Hydrogen Economy Joke

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian grudgingly admitting that, unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy cannot be relied upon to produce affordable hydrogen for the foreseeable future. Now if only they would take that thought a little further.

Using hydrogen fuel risks locking in reliance on fossil fuels, researchers warn

Electrification of cars and home boilers best choice to fight the climate crisis, say scientists

Damian Carrington
Environment editor
@dpcarrington
Fri 7 May 2021 01.14 AEST

Using hydrogen-based fuels for cars and home heating risks locking in a dependency on fossil fuels and failing to tackle the climate crisis, according to a new analysis.

Fuels produced from hydrogen can be used as straight replacements for oil and gas and can be low-carbon, if renewable electricity is used to produce these “e-fuels”. However, the research found that using the electricity directly to power cars and warm houses was far more efficient.

Renewable electricity production is increasing rapidly as costs tumble. But it still makes up a small proportion of all energy used, which is mostly provided by coal, oil and gas. Using the electricity directly is efficient, but requires investment in new types of car and heating systems.

Using the electricity to create hydrogen from water and then using carbon dioxide to manufacture other fuels can produce “drop-in” replacements for fossil fuels. But the new study concludes this cannot work on a large enough scale to tackle the climate emergency in time.

“Hydrogen-based fuels can be a great clean energy carrier, yet their costs and associated risks are also great,” said Falko Ueckerdt, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany, who led the research.

“If we cling to combustion technologies and hope to feed them with hydrogen-based fuels, and these turn out to be too costly and scarce, then we will end up burning further oil and gas,” he said. “We should therefore prioritise those precious hydrogen-based fuels for applications for which they are indispensable: long-distance aviation, feedstocks in chemical production and steel production.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/06/hydrogen-fuel-risks-reliance-on-fossil-fuels

The abstract of the study;

Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation

Falko UeckerdtChristian BauerAlois DirnaichnerJordan EverallRomain Sacchi & Gunnar Luderer 

E-fuels promise to replace fossil fuels with renewable electricity without the demand-side transformations required for a direct electrification. However, e-fuels’ versatility is counterbalanced by their fragile climate effectiveness, high costs and uncertain availability. E-fuel mitigation costs are €800–1,200 per tCO2. Large-scale deployment could reduce costs to €20–270 per tCO2 until 2050, yet it is unlikely that e-fuels will become cheap and abundant early enough. Neglecting demand-side transformations threatens to lock in a fossil-fuel dependency if e-fuels fall short of expectations. Sensible climate policy supports e-fuel deployment while hedging against the risk of their unavailability at large scale. Policies should be guided by a ‘merit order of end uses’ that prioritizes hydrogen and e-fuels for sectors that are inaccessible to direct electrification.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01032-7

Using electricity to produce hydrogen is easy – just drop two electrodes running a DC current between them into sea water, and collect the hydrogen bubbles from the negative electrode.

But producing hydrogen this way using renewable electricity is impossibly expensive, compared to the cost of producing hydrogen using fossil fuel.

However renewable energy prices are plummeting, right? So to kick start the hydrogen economy, all we have to do is start the transition by producing hydrogen using fossil fuel or nuclear energy, then wait for the falling cost of renewables to drive a free market switch to producing the hydrogen using renewable energy.

The Potsdam study, and this Guardian article, is a grudging admission that this predicted transition to cheaper hydrogen produced using affordable renewable energy is not going to happen for decades, if ever.

4.8 23 votes
Article Rating
93 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dennis G Sandberg
May 6, 2021 10:25 pm

No, producing hydrogen with renewables is not expensive. Midday RE production supply, here in Cali on moderate temperature windy and sunny days, exceeds demand. This excess deliverability causes it’s market value to drop below zero. Sunshine and breezes fraudsters use these negative prices as a cost saving by using it to produce hydrogen. The more solar we install, and we’re installing a bunch of it, the cheaper the hydrogen becomes because that negative pricing gets way negative! How’s that for a business model? Some would say, stop adding solar, but you’ll never hear that from a liberal (and there’s not much of anything else out here).

paul courtney
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 7, 2021 8:09 am

Mr. Worral: I agree, in fact I’d go further- comments here have established that connecting wind/solar to the grid is a big mistake. Maybe MR. Sandberg can persuade his fellow Calis to dedicate wind/solar to make hydrogen, disconnected from the grid. I surmise that wind/solar isn’t fit for that purpose, either, but I would not object to anyone (subsidy free) making hydrogen with free (Ha ah, that hurt) electricity. I also surmise that if Mr. Sandberg were correct “producing hydrogen with renewables not expensive”, then somebody would have done it without all the fuss of tying to the grid. The fact that nobody has done or is doing it tells me wind/solar costs more than the revenue from the H2.

michael hart
Reply to  paul courtney
May 7, 2021 4:10 pm

Yup. There are certain economic experiments that reveal what industry thinks the real costs of electricity generation are, over the long term. Which ones talk, and which ones walk.

The main point aside, watching Guardian contributors begin to learn these things must be like the pleasure gained from seeing your neighbor’s delinquent child finally beginning to form words and speak sentences at the age of twelve.

dk_
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
May 6, 2021 11:13 pm

“How’s that for a business model?”
Incomplete.
And also, not hydrogen. The demand is for electricity, and is throttled by the capacity of the grid, and is used off the grid by consumers, not for hydrogen production — in case you missed it, the topic. So at peak production conditions and time of day you reach peak. Good. All the rest of the time, someone has got to burn coal and gas to make up.
Add back in the taxpayer subsidy to the cost, I’m sure that it will go back over zero.
But keep on installing pv — the ones you installed last year are down 1% in capacity. Two years ago, down 2%. When was the last time anyone cleaned the surfaces?
How much carbon in that concrete footing? How much lime can be activated for portland cement using only electricity? How much gas does it take to produce a ton of aluminum? Of silicon carbide? Of structural glass?
If the accountants hide the production costs, then operating efficiency looks really, really good. Don’t tell folks the real story, they get mad.

JCR
Reply to  dk_
May 7, 2021 7:27 pm

I’d push your point even further. Is it actually credible to produce the products you mention (portland cement, aluminium, steel, copper for cables, fossil fuel oil to produce the resins for making wind turbine blades) with renewable energy?

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
May 7, 2021 5:01 am

China has lots of solar & wind for experimental purposes, but is going full steam with fossil fuel and nuclear to provide economical and dependable energy for their growing economy … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/kf3DIEm

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  John Shewchuk
May 7, 2021 6:08 pm

A very up-beat article – Iceland and hydrogen as a fuel.

http://newenergy.is/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/A-2030-vision-for-H2-in-Iceland-released.pdf

It reads a little bit like ‘fusion’, just around the corner…..

PCman999
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
May 8, 2021 12:21 am

Yes, fusion: the original climate change scam (And I’m a nuclear engineer …that later got into computers). Fusion will never be cheap, as long as tritium is $30,000 a GRAM and the only real supply of Helium3 is on the moon (and that’s even harder to fuse than deuterium and tritium). Hard to beat combined cycle natural gas plants, though molten salt thorium reactors give me a warm fuzzy feeling (insert meme) because of its safety features, high efficiency and it’s ability to filter out wastes, wastes that only need a few hundred instead of a few tens of thousands of years to decay down. Could be cheap enough, with Elon Musk’s help, to be able to afford to hurl the worst of the waste into the center of the Sun.

PCman999
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
May 8, 2021 12:02 am

Looks like all the down votes mean people didn’t understand what you were saying, that the excess and useless wind and solar (produced when it’s not needed) is given away or even paid to be taken by other areas, hence the negative price that is subsidized by the rate payers, and renewable hydrogen companies take advantage of that electricity to make h2 that is way too expensive also but soon governments will force us and companies to buy. Buy renewable company share for the next 3 years and dump them before the next presidential election cycle. Get your climate cash while you can, the pig slop trough is already crowded but you might be able to squeeze in.

Anders Valland
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
May 10, 2021 5:00 am

Business model, huh? This is like having someone who suddenly shows up with a thousand cans of coca-cola and has to get rid of them immediately so gives them away for free or even pays someone to take them – while the regular shopowners can’t sell any of their cans. Then this someone disappears and business returns to normal until that same someone turns up with ten thousand cans. On and on and on.
But hey, suddenly one day when this someone suddenly appears with his ten thousand cans that used to be free there is another someone who needs twenty thousand cans right now! And in your “business model” he would still give them away for free….yeah, right, now I think of it I do have a proposition for you. PM me.

May 6, 2021 10:25 pm

The Grauniad, like most Climate Alarmist organisations specialises in short-term thinking that takes it from A to B, but rarely takes it to C and never takes it to D. Admitting that using, renewable energy to produce hydrogen is not economic is a big step for the Grauniad but getting further down the analysis track defeats the Grauniad.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
May 8, 2021 1:00 am

Even better to put the hydrogen into any usueable form you then have to compress it more than 800 BAR, which takes vast amounts more energy and heat.
It appears this side of the entire stupidity cycle is entirely missed.

The net result is an total energy efficiency of less than the entire virtue signalling hydrogen manufacture process.

All in fact you are doing is a wasteful battery with no thought or consequences like the Tesla car, what to do with the inevitable dead batteries or dead worn out cylinders.

That energy is totally wasted because as the hydrogen cylinder is decompressed the cylinder gets cold, much like a propane cylinder would, so you can’t even use it to heat a vehicle, you will freeze!

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  pigs_in_space
May 9, 2021 7:17 am

H2 storage is the problem that seems to be ignored, along with hydrogen impacts on steel piping and containers. You could liquefy H2 and store it in vacuum insulated vessels at 20 K. It is also possible to store H2 as hydrides. HWT and Daimler Benz built some demonstration buses using HWT hydride storage systems in the 1990s. If this were economical, we would see quite a few H2/hydride busses on the road today.

Most commercial H2 is produced either as a byproduct or by steam reforming natural gas. Both of these sources are more cost effective than electrolysis of water. The entire green hydrogen thesis is an uneconomical canard.

ghl
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
May 9, 2021 11:55 pm

The entire green hydrogen thesis is an uneconomical canard.”
And yet, strangely, Turnbull is joint venturing with Fortescue something concerning hydrogen. Careful, Twiggy.

John Dueker
May 6, 2021 10:54 pm

I am amazed that anyone at the Guardian would:
1. Say anything that was at all intelligent.
2. Dare to say anything negative about the climate religion that isn’t glowingly positive.
3. Have enough engineering knowledge to know that investing in a perpetual motion machine might be dumb

ozspeaksup
Reply to  John Dueker
May 7, 2021 4:24 am

its ok theyre probably a new hire
and be a new Fired! very soon

dk_
May 6, 2021 11:03 pm

“But the new study concludes this cannot work on a large enough scale to tackle the climate emergency in time.”

New to climate scientists, who should listen to engineers, or economists.

Luckily there is no emergency, so panic profiteers, politicians, and other entertainers can try to make carbon-intensive industrially produced fuel substitutes economically feasible, no carbon tax required.

Patrick MJD
May 6, 2021 11:14 pm

They are just following China’s lead.

Ralph L
May 6, 2021 11:18 pm

In sea water, I believe it also breaks down the salt into Na & CL. Saw this in a demo for pool chlorination via electrolysis as a kid, just from the salt washed off our bodies from sweat. Used a platinum screen for the electrode…

Duker
Reply to  Ralph L
May 7, 2021 12:34 am

Sea water is out of question, causes issues with the electrodes.

Meab
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 7, 2021 8:45 am

Had a swimming pool chlorine generator that made chlorine by electrolysis of water softnener rock salt into chlorine leaving some (rather nasty) sodium hydroxide to dispose. It worked perfectly well for over 4 years without any electrode maintenance or replacement. Don’t know how much longer it worked after I sold the house but some come with a 7 year warranty. With pure salt the corrosion is slow.

Vincent Causey
May 6, 2021 11:28 pm

The only concern they have is that it may impede the road to their holy grail of zero emissions.

Climate believer
May 6, 2021 11:34 pm

Wasn’t so long ago they were lambasting the Tories for not investing a billion Euros into hydrogen like the Germans. Lefties love them some Germans.

Poor Guardian, it hurts when you have to think doesn’t it.

griff
Reply to  Climate believer
May 6, 2021 11:58 pm

It isn’t the Guardian doing the ‘thinking’ here: they are just reporting a study… not necessarily backing or advocating it.

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
May 7, 2021 1:45 am

The Guardian doesn’t do thinking, only emoting and virtue-signalling.

M Courtney
Reply to  griff
May 7, 2021 3:06 am

Griff makes an interesting point that applies to the BBC as well as the Guardian.
They report opinion as facts. When it is just opinion.
That is is published opinion is irrelevant. The Guardian should take the opinions and check them against observations – observations like the complete lack of investment in these hydrogen ideas.
Instead they report the opinions as meaningful in their own right.

WILLIAM TOWNSEND REEVES
Reply to  griff
May 7, 2021 4:48 am

Sorry, the Guardian “reporting” on climate is like reporting on sport but only when Arsenal wins.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
May 7, 2021 6:32 am

Thanks Griff
I was worried there for a moment that the Guardian Might be capable of critical thought and the whole climate debacle might just be true. Pointing out that “it isn’t the Guardian doing the “thinking” here” restores my faith that Humanity WILL overcome these Climate Change Charlatans and Snake Oil Wind/Solar Farm Salesman (subsidy farmers)

Peta of Newark
May 6, 2021 11:48 pm

Why do you need electricity, renewable or otherwise, to make hydrogen?

Quote:Water helps iron react with oxygen by breaking up the oxygen molecule. During the initial stages of rusting, iron loses electrons and oxygen gains electrons. Ferrous and ferric ions then react with water to form ferrous hydroxide, ferric hydroxide and hydrogen.
From

IOW: Just pop some Iron, any old Iron, into some salt (sea) water to make hydrogen.

Did these people never go to any sort of school, or if they did, what sort of school was it exactly?
And it wasn’t one that taught how to use either your own eyes, brain or Search Engines either. So what does go on inside contemporary schools these days?

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
StephenP
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 7, 2021 12:39 am

Eventually the iron will run out, so you will have to smelt some more iron, of course using a hydrogen furnace, which involves making even more hydrogen.
This all seems like a perpetual motion machine.

StephenP
Reply to  StephenP
May 7, 2021 1:24 am

Another perpetual motion machine comes to mind.
We ‘invest’ fossil fuel and rare minerals to make steel, concrete, glass and plastic to produce windmills and solar panels, as well as the transmission infrastructure needed.
These produce electricity on an uncertain basis, so we need more materials and fossil fuels to produce batteries.
All thse have life of around 20 years, so replacements need to be built, but by this time the law says that renewable must be used to produce them.
Nuclear is a no-no!
And so on ad infinitum.
Meanwhile we plebs will be living off the energy crumbs from the elites’ table.

Bryan A
Reply to  StephenP
May 7, 2021 6:35 am

They appear to be more interested in a Perpetual Emotion Machine

Coeur de Lion
May 6, 2021 11:52 pm

But isn’t hydrogen dangerous? Not in my home nor car, thanks

UNGN
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 7, 2021 4:39 am

I would rather emit a 1,000 Tons of CO2 into the environment than leak 1 Ton of H2, but I’m not a scientist. I don’t think anyone really knows the long term environmental impact of a “hydrogen economy” even if it was cheap & plentiful. I’m sure massive amounts of leaked H2 will only help the Ozone Layer, because it isn’t like H2 is light or anything.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 7, 2021 5:10 am

Yes hydrogen is dangerous and because the H2 molecules are so small, very challenging to contain in a pressurized system. Leak testing for quality assurance purposes is often performed using a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen that is below the combustible limit for the H2.

Last edited 2 months ago by Farmer Ch E retired
Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
May 7, 2021 9:05 am

Just combine the hydrogen with carbon to make it safer and easier to contain. Oh, wait.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
May 7, 2021 3:59 pm

You are on the right track. Add one CO and you can get methanol. Methanol is a very good way of storing hydrogen. It is not very difficult to turn any organic materials (think: garbage) into methanol. The methanol economy (it is a real thing) makes much more sense that a hydrogen economy.

Dave
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
May 10, 2021 3:46 am

You might be on to something. This fuel source, these “hydrocarbons” (for lack of a better word) could be transported long distances and used in a wide variety of vehicles and industries. I envision stations all over where people could pump hydrocarbons into their personal vehicles. We could even use them in manufactured products! Hydrogen, used by the masses cheaply and safely. Madness, I know, but one can dream.

Now, if only we had a natural source for these hydrocarbons.

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
May 9, 2021 7:36 am

The He atom is actually smaller than an H2 molecule. Cryogenic LHY tanks are helium leak checked. I am also a Ch E and have commissioned many new LHY systems.

The primary danger of H2 is that it burns with an almost invisible flame and the flames emit little to no radiant heat. This means that you only feel burning hydrogen when you are in it.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
May 9, 2021 8:21 am

Brooks – the invisible flame – another good reason to abandon H2.

RE He, I do have some experience from back in grad school. My research project involved measuring the mechanical properties of select epoxies from near absolute zero and up. To achieve these low temperatures, I used a double dewar with liquid N2 in the outer and liquid He in the inner.

Larry Butler metrologist since 1966
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
May 9, 2021 8:32 pm

But you know the beer can bean counters at car companies will only install a cheap storage container with a 3 year mtbf to keep you trading, which is what battery-powered cars are about….”Planned Obsolescense”

Larry Butler metrologist since 1966
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 9, 2021 8:26 pm

Think Hindenberg. Watch the videos. Imagine the cheap crap car leaking into your house above the garage. Watch the videos again. Say NO without cursing this time.

How stupid hydrogen is. The massive R-134a molecules leak out ofyour car so easily at 120psi. How will they keep the tiniest H2 molecule from leakiing??

griff
May 6, 2021 11:57 pm

but using hydrogen in the existing gas grids is more practical, especially in the UK where natural gas is the largest form of home heating.

The gas grid is looking to have some use in storage for periods of low wind too…

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
May 7, 2021 6:37 am

Except of course that the existing Gas Grid is more than likely far too porous to maintain Hydrogen Gas Pressure without leaking like a sieve

Reply to  Bryan A
May 7, 2021 8:06 am

Don’t confuse griff, believing gas is gas.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
May 7, 2021 12:32 pm

Using hydrogen in existing gas grids is totally impractical, but you are to technically illiterate to know or understand that. Where hydrogen is used in industrial processes, the supply lines are kept as short as practicable.

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  griff
May 9, 2021 7:50 am

Griff, the current natural gas piping systems would need to be replaced with materials which are not susceptible to either hydrogen blistering or hydrogen embrittlement. All mechanical joints would need to be replaced by welded joints. All electrical components would need to be upgraded to Class 1, Division 1, Group B.

H2 piping systems inside buildings would need to have all mechanical connections inside exhausted cabinets. H2 flame detectors are UV/VIS, not infrared. The safety training would be a monumental task, since you only feel a hydrogen flame when you are in it.

What you propose is possible but it is neither easy, nor cheap.

Dave
Reply to  griff
May 10, 2021 3:52 am

What? Trying to use the existing gas grid for hydrogen is like trying to store water in a container made of chicken wire. It’s not remotely feasible to use an existing grid for hydrogen.

May 7, 2021 12:22 am

Hydrogen is a glasshouse gas.

Sam Capricci
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
May 7, 2021 3:34 am

Every time I read an article about this next miracle fuel, hydrogen, I keep wondering if we are replacing one weak GHG with one that is a far stronger GHG. I remember the quotes from the Democrats about how getting rid of lead in fuel and changing over to catalytic convertors would help save the environment as after all, CO2 is simply plant food. Now we’re to trust these people and change over to a hydrogen fueled economy just to hear them whining in 20 years about how water vapor is changing our climate and heating the planet.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Sam Capricci
May 7, 2021 5:59 am

And when they figure out that hydrogen is not such a good idea, they jump to NH4 as the next miracle fuel.

Quentin Michael
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 7, 2021 8:36 am

Happened today. AEP tagged ammonia in the Telegraph.

Mike McMillan
May 7, 2021 12:59 am

Maybe we should concentrate on methods to collect the solar wind, which is mostly ionized hydrogen. Totally renewable and carbon neutral.

Chris Nisbet
May 7, 2021 1:08 am

Do owners of unreliable energy sources of energy (e.g. windfarms) bear the cost of restoring the land they occupy to the way it was when their life is over? As I understand it, this is common with coal mines, and I guess this would/should be factored into the price of the coal.
Or are unreliables free of that cost, and is that one reason why the price of unreliable energy is reducing (is it really?)?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
May 7, 2021 8:08 am

Unreliable energy sources (aka wind and solar) exclude the vast majority of their costs from their price, and further have the additional subsidy of being given “priority” for use vs. (excuse me) REAL energy sources (aka coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro). That’s the only reason they appear to be artificially “cheap.”

Including ALL of their costs, in particular the cost of “backup” power plants running inefficiently on “standby” to be ramped up to make up for the unreliable and unpredictable nature, would reveal them to be infinitely more costly than (excuse me) REAL energy sources that are reliable and dispatchable.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 7, 2021 2:50 pm

Precisely, how otherwise normal people cannot accept those simple facts bears testimony to the effective use of propaganda.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dennis G Sandberg
May 7, 2021 1:19 am

Looks like the renewable scam is just about played out, and the hydrogen scam is next.

After they have sold us all battery cars, they will sell us hydrogen cars. They won’t work, either.

Even the nuclear industry is jumping on the hydrogen band wagon

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 7, 2021 2:40 am

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9he4Pyqffrk

Australia (well, Queensland) has already demonstrated the hydrogen car. I am sure that future hydrogen cars will work just as well as this one did.

And so will the so-called “hydrogen economy”.

H.R.
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
May 7, 2021 4:19 am

Nice link, Dudley. I think I have one of those parked in my garage, right beside my flying car. 😜

BTW, that video also really brought home the problem of H2O exhaust. Imagine rush hour with every car emitting little clouds. Visibility would soon approach zero. Traffic would grind to a halt. Then things would go downhill from there. 😮

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
May 7, 2021 5:09 am

And then there’s the new Mercedes battery car … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k1tbf8muMc

Paul Bahlin
May 7, 2021 2:48 am

Gotta love it. Extracting energy from burned hydrogen. Only a greenie could fall in love with it.

We could burn wood to get all the energy from it, then process the ashes to get even more.

dodgy geezer
May 7, 2021 3:36 am

“Hydrogen bubbles forming on the negative terminal of a battery in a glass of salt water. Do not try this at home – if you do this for more than a few seconds, things can get very messy, as the battery package can rapidly corrode and rupture, and spill chemical nasties. The salt contaminated battery is also a fire hazard.”

Get some proportion! A PP9 contains about 20k Joules – that’s about 20BTU. Not enough energy to heat a hot water bottle. And the contents of a PP9 are Zinc and Manganese Dioxide – chemicals picked for their safety. Treat messes sensibly, of course, but there is too much infantilization and risk avoidance going on in today’s society…

H.R.
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 7, 2021 4:23 am

Nothing can go wrong? Hold my beer…
😜

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 7, 2021 4:29 am

theres that factoid about how many people lick the 9v battery to see if its ok n die each yr..aus bureau of stats has it recorded

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 7, 2021 7:42 am

“Nothing is more frightening than ignorance in action.”

  • Goethe
Rich Lambert
Reply to  dodgy geezer
May 7, 2021 6:23 am

Those 9V batteries contain 6 – 1.5V cells. I’ve touch 9V batteries many times to my tongue to see if they still worked. Strange that I’m still alive.

Patrick H.
Reply to  Rich Lambert
May 7, 2021 11:20 am

I do the same thing, Rich. A life time ago I installed cable TV. Tracing out cables, I rigged a 9 volt to one end then licked the cables at the other end until I finally got stung. Then I realized everyone else was doing the same thing and almost threw-up. Bought a cheep signal generator and it worked great.

TonyG
Reply to  dodgy geezer
May 7, 2021 12:28 pm

I tried “this” at home when I was about 8, following instructions from The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments (long since “banned”).

guidoLaMoto
May 7, 2021 4:20 am

Endergonic vs exergonic anyone?…Isn’t making H to power combustion engines knda like using $5 bills to counterfeit $1 bills?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  guidoLaMoto
May 7, 2021 8:16 am

LOL great analogy – fits perfectly.

As I like to put it, the notion of using hydrogen as “fuel” is a joke, because hydrogen is the “Elizabeth Taylor of molecules” – it’s always married to something else, and the “divorce,” combined with the costs of compression and storage, and leakage (extremely difficult to contain, especially when pressurized), will involve more energy use than the hydrogen “fuel” will ever produce when burned.

paul courtney
Reply to  guidoLaMoto
May 7, 2021 8:39 am

Mr. LaMoto: In CliSci, $5 bills are free and plentiful! That’s how they make it work “kinda like”.

Farmer Ch E retired
May 7, 2021 4:57 am

Didn’t the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research forecast an 80% probability of an El Niño in 2020 before we actually had a La Niña?

Last edited 2 months ago by Farmer Ch E retired
Timo, not that one
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
May 7, 2021 6:07 am

I has been proven that 87.623% of all statistics are made up.

Hooters napkin

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
May 7, 2021 8:13 am

Yes, it did proudly pointing on new maths, models, data.
A total flop, Schellnhuber in the frontline 😀

Carlo, Monte
May 7, 2021 5:54 am

E-fuels promise to replace fossil fuels

How do they know this?

Did someone interview the e-fuels?

ih_fan
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 7, 2021 7:55 am

And what does the “E” in “E-fuels” actually represent? Expensive? Elusive? Exaggerated?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ih_fan
May 7, 2021 10:01 am

Explosive?

TonyG
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 7, 2021 12:30 pm

It’s a campaign promise 🙂

Henri MASSON
May 7, 2021 6:57 am

Some additional (elementary) stuff to help & clarify the situation:
https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/?s=masson+furfari

Olen
May 7, 2021 7:47 am

As the article states, science is about making the best use of resources along with integrity. And the best use is for people. Presenting something that falls short of that is neither science or a benefit. Mistakes will always be made but should not be adopted for people.

JamesD
May 7, 2021 9:04 am

Wait until they discover the cost of hydrogen compression.

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  JamesD
May 9, 2021 7:56 am

Or the cost to liquefy hydrogen.

Kit P
May 7, 2021 9:34 am

Safety standards are based on science not irrational fear.

Hydrogen will never be used for heating homes or transportation because it very dangerous compared to the alternatives. It detonates.

In some cases, hydrogen is the only choice. It is very expensive to make hydrogen safe.

In nuclear power plants, hydrogen is produced from water during fission. Also there are some inert radioactive fission product gases. I was the responsible system engineer for handling these gas for both BWR and PWR.

You do not want valves leaking. There are valves that get the job done but the are expensive and require periodic maintenance.

Think about this. Tires have a date stamp because rubber has a shelf life. It is not safe to sell a ‘new’ five year old tire. Last year I damaged a 3 yo tire on my motorhome. So I decided to replace both steer tires. I was asked if I wanted to keep the good tire. Sure! I was then offered $100 for the tire that was $300 new.

I truck driver will be happy to wear out the tire.

If you are my neighbor and put solar panels on your roof or a Tesla Charging station in your garage I will think you are stupid but I will not tell you.

If you park a hydrogen fueled car in your driveway, we will be talking. I will show you the picture of a child walking past. The picture that I will be sending to child protective services.

Several times I have people tell me to mind my own business. One mention of CPS, and it is yes sir and no sir.

Neo
May 7, 2021 12:59 pm

The headline reads like …
Oreos best choice to fight the climate crisis, say scientists
The myth of the good choice Fig Newton

Al Miller
May 7, 2021 5:02 pm

Wait- there’s a crisis?

Where? The temperature charts don’t show a crisis.

Life has NEVER been better for humanity. Deaths from from climate, oops, weather incidents are nearly zero.

May 8, 2021 1:31 am

As I’ve said many times – hydrogen is a road to nowhere

Larry Butler metrologist since 1966
May 9, 2021 8:03 pm

My mechanics can’t stop the 120psi R-134a from leaking out of the tiny A/C system in my car. So, how are they going to prevent thousands of psi of the tiniest atom we know of from turning the garage under the kid’s bedroom into the Hindenberg Disaster??

Anders Valland
May 10, 2021 5:06 am

It is a twisted world when you need “research” to tell you what basic engineering teaches. “However, the research found that using the electricity directly to power cars and warm houses was far more efficient.” Who would have thought?

The Potsdam Institute belong to those who think “combustion technology” = bad. They also think “combustion technology” = old. And they think “fuel cell technology” = good & brand new, as well as anything electric.

Their basic premise here is to get rid of engines for cars, trucks, trains and ships. They tend to think you can electrify anything.

%d bloggers like this: