Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to John Mathews, Professor Emeritus of Macquarie Business School, green hydrogen will be cheaper than fossil fuel when the process is scaled up with billions of dollars of government money. Of course the money must not be seen as a cost burden for ordinary people.
Australia’s clean hydrogen revolution is a path to prosperity – but it must be powered by renewable energy
October 27, 2021 6.16am AEDT
John Mathews
Professor Emeritus, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie UniversityDays out from the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, the Morrison government on Tuesday announced a “practically achievable” path to reaching its new target of net-zero emissions by 2050.
As expected, the government will pursue a “technology not taxes” approach – eschewing policies such as a carbon price in favour of technological solutions to reduce emissions. Developing Australia’s fledgling hydrogen industry is a central plank in the plan.
This technological shift should not be seen as a cost burden for Australia. Yes, major transformation in industry is needed as it moves away from conventional fossil-fuelled processes. But this green industrial revolution is a potential source of great profit and prosperity – a fact Australia’s business sector has already recognised.
Acting quickly, and powering the shift with renewable energy, means Australia can be a world leader in green hydrogen technology and exports, particular to Asia.
…
To bring down the cost of green hydrogen, it must be manufactured at scale. This is consistent with a vision of a global green shift in which clean forms of energy and production become so competitive they displace incumbent fossil fuel industries.
…
Economics will drive the transition. The costs of green hydrogen will likely outmatch the costs of oil and gas, and so become the inputs of choice in making green fertilisers, green steel, green cement and fuel for heavy vehicles such as trucks and ships.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/australias-clean-hydrogen-revolution-is-a-path-to-prosperity-but-it-must-be-powered-by-renewable-energy-169832
Professor Emeritus John Mathews appears to be suggesting that spending billions of dollars to obtain a commodity which is, at best, no different from the commodity we already have, is a good plan which does not add to our cost burden.
I used to train fresh computer science graduates. As the contractor I got the jobs nobody else wanted. I didn’t mind, I enjoy teaching people.
Every one of the new trainees needed to be extensively de-programmed, their professors had sent them into their first industry job with their heads stuffed full of utter nonsense. It usually only took a few weeks to carefully explain, with examples, why half of what they had learned was wrong, and set them on the path to becoming productive junior software developers.
I wonder if people who train fresh business school graduates in their first job have a similar experience?
I somehow get the impression Professor Emeritus Matthews never actually worked in a business not entirely supported by taxes.
One would have more respect for the professor’s statement if his degree was in a hard science coupled with years of practical efforts.
There should be a mechanism for revoking PhDs when the holder of one demonstrates gross incompetence. Engineers are subject to license revocation when they show incompetence. Why should economics, business or climate professionals be allowed to keep their credentials when they are consistently proven wrong?
There are several obstacles to that line of thinking ever manifesting itself in reality.
University degrees are not the same as “licenses” nor “professional seals”. They simply indicate the grantee has completed the course material in a fashion satisfactory to the grantor.
In addition, that would require that the entity that provided the credentials be the one to revoke them. States within the U.S. can and sometimes do revoke the licenses to operate (i.e. business operations, the practice of law, the practice of medicine, the practice of architecture, the practice of cosmetology, etc…) for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being “malpractice” but also for administrative revocations surrounding the failure to pay taxes, maintain competency through continuing education, or upkeep of annual licensing fees.
Universities do sometimes revoke the bestowment of degrees, but that has historically been in instances of fraud where it can be argued that the grantee did not actually complete the work satisfactorily to the grantor (i.e. they cheated!).
Professional societies and associations will do something similar but will also encompass “malpractice” as an avenue to revoke the licensing/certification. Or if you cheated on your bar/boards or other certifying exams meant to test your knowledge.
Why should economics, business or climate professionals be allowed to keep their credentials when they are consistently proven wrong?
It almost seems like a mark of honor in some fields. Think Krugman.
No, if he had such a degree and such experience and STILL reached such an utterly moronic conclusion, my “respect” for his statement would be reduced even further – if that is even possible.
Especially knowledge in physics and chemistry.
We need many more of the stature of Michael Faraday, one of the greatest English scientists, who I believe if one looks closely at the way he went to work would have rejected the nonsense propagated by modern “climate science.”
I don’t believe it’s about that; his position is purely ideological, and not practical, derived from living a long life of undeserved privilege at taxpayers’ expense. Accademia is teeming with puffed up morons like that.
I would like to watch him trying to convince a public company board of directors to approve capital expenditure based on his theories and apparent lack of understanding of what is revenue and what is profit.
Just chuck the uni staff super fund money into it and put their future where their mouths are.
He’s another idiot believing his own BS
Still waiting for the too-cheap-to-meter wind power I was promised >40 years ago.
It will happen on the same day polar bears go extinct, the arctic ice disappears,the maledives drown and Biden makes it through the day without pooping his diapers.
They neglected to tell you that said “phenomenon” only ever occurs when demand is really low and wind “generation” really high. In other words, when it produces the electricity at times and in places where nobody needs it, and they have to give it away.
The rest of (most of) the time, it simply makes electricity much less reliable and much more expensive.
Even if the initial energy is ‘free,’ there are costs associated with the storage of hydrogen that make it more expensive than storing similar gases such as propane or acetylene. Because of the exceptionally wide range of being explosive, there are inherent costs in assuring the safety at the consumer level.
It is ironic that the impetus for this is to eliminate CO2 when H2O is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If the water vapor from cars is allowed to just exhaust into the air, it will increase the heat index in cities, thereby exacerbating the Urban Heat Island effect. If it is condensed on board and carried around, it will decrease the efficiency of the fuel as a result of the increased weight. If it is condensed on board and then continuously dumped, it will make the roads slick, especially in Winter weather, increasing the loss of life from road accidents. It will probably contribute to an increased rate of erosion of pavement and corrosion of the undercarriage of cars. The increased relative humidity may contribute to growth of mold, impacting human health and the longevity of buildings.
Alarmists are so anxious to solve what they see as a problem that they are ignoring a host of new problems that may well be worse.
Spencer’s Third Law: For every social action there is an opposite and equal reaction known as unintended consequences.
“it will make the roads slick, especially in Winter weather” Black ice in not slick, it a polish skating ring you cannot see. The only slipper is ice with water on it. At least with ice with water you can see it and it does not happen in extreme cold where most of the time the road have freeze dried.
The water will come from the cars. It will freeze on the roads and be covered immediately with more condensing water from the cars, hence slippery roads. You are looking at a one time event with no additional water added.
The black ice we have in Maine is slippery. When a car drives over it it will slick up the ice by melting a thin film and then you slip.
At least in Maine the drivers know how to handle it.
Here in South Carolina and Georgia the rare back ice is a “bumper car” event.
Heck, when I lived in South Carolina a 2″ snow fall started bumper cars, and in Texas, with their 6″ of road wearing surface, a good summer rain shower did the same.
Maybe someone will eventually come up with automobile driving simulators that are inexpensive enough for each state to include as part of drivers license training. The technology is continually getting less expensive. I still think that would be much better, and safer, than self driving automobiles.
neither wind nor solar is renewable … panels and windmills must be replaced every 10-20 years … the resources to build them are very finite and in some cases scarce …
Not to mention unproducible using energy from renewables. Try mining limestone for the 1,500 tons of concrete needed for the base of each replacement wind turbine using renewables, or building multi-ton replacement wind turbine blades without epoxy made from petroleum. The list goes on and on….
You are so right! So-called “renewables” are a myth. They are anything but that as they need replacing.
“
EconomicsIgnorance, pride and fanaticism will drive the transition.””…the government will pursue a “technology not taxes” approach”…
Yet are happy to ‘subsidise’ this new ”technology”. So where does the subsidy come from if it is not a tax??
The tax approach makes fossil fuels unaffordable and hopes that the necessary technology comes along before we slide back into the stone age.
My hope for the technology approach is that they would develop some kind of semi-viable technology before they foist it on the public. Even better if they could develop something that would even come close to competing with fossil fuels.
The problem is that we’ve been working seriously on alternative energy ever since the OPEC oil price shocks back in the 1970s. All the low hanging fruit has been picked so don’t expect any world shattering news on the renewable energy front.
They think it will take off all by itself if we can just boost the volume deployed past a tipping point, with more funding, taxes, grants…
Yes!
“Even though we’re losing money on each unit we sell we’ll make it up in volume!”
Windmill are not “working seriously”!
Actually, this is just Scotty from Marketing trying to market an idea that is unpalatable to most Australians, while keeping it palatable to the shouty minority. It doesn’t actually mean anything at all, except to leave the government wiggle-room to claim all sorts of expenses that they do want as ‘investment in technology’.
It’s a tricky balancing act, but I’m guessing that he’s hoping that it won’t matter much by the election.
Yes, I’m cynical, but am I cynical enough?
I agree that the PM often presents like a used car salesman, but he has never been in marketing, that is a Labor Party smear based on his senior management positions before becoming a Member of Parliament and advertising campaigns conducted, created by marketing people and approved by senior management and probably the Minister responsible.
Printing press.
LOL, yep, that’s the answer I was looking for. Thanks for the laugh Nick.
fees on your essential purchases
Let a thousand solyndras bloom.
In Canberra from Money Trees planted in Courtyards inside Parliament House.
Some ideas are so stupid and some claims so ridiculous that only an intellectual professor emeritus can believe them.
In fairness, he taught at a business school not an engineering school. And he probably taught marketing rather than accounting, since his numbers are so off.
His Ph.D. appears to be in economics, the dismal “science”, not to mention a social “science” for which “science” is possibly a misspelling of the word “conjecture”….if economists were any good at predictions, governments wouldn’t stumble through an economic crisis or more per generation….Ph.D.s in economics are participatory degrees granted by the university debating club with a requirement of huge donations by the student’s parents. Real Ph.D’s are granted by real scientists to deserving grad students for STEM research discoveries.
….even woke magazines give it a take down…
https://www.wired.com/story/econ-statbias-study/
G’Day Rud,
You’re a business man and give the same problem to five different economists. You’re going to get five different answers, six if one of them attended Yale.
(From “The Peter Principal” – I think.)
And how does that make it fair. Just because he has a title in some field?
One needs several years of college to become a world class bullshiter.
There is only one difference between between the feudal aristocracy and the intellectual one.
The feudal aristocrats are more hoenest and therefore less dangerous as they do not pretend to be part of the plebs.
In all probability the good professor had tenure (could not be fired), a more than adequate salary and a gold plated pension and healthcare plan. I’d say that he doesn’t care, but that would be misleading, he actually doesn’t live in the real world and has none of it’s cares. None of them apparently do
I told not agree more that it should be powered by unreliables. Just make sure you get them off the grid, to reduce my costs, and support all the unreliable costs yourselves. Win-win.
They keep forgetting to mention that “renewables” are 100% dependent upon fossil fuels for their very existence.
So “it must be powered by renewable energy” in truth equals “it must be powered by fossil fuels” – which of course can be far more efficiently and effectively used without the renewable energy boondoggle “middle man.”
Green hydrogen? Means electrolysis from renewables.
First, some numbers from essay ‘Hydrogen Hype’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Most hydrogen is made by steam reformation of natgas, which isn’t green. Less than 5% is via water electrolysis, mostly special non-industrial circumstances because more expensive. Electrolysis is about 70% energy efficient.
To be stored in meaningful quantities, hydrogen is either highly compressed in special costly carbon fiber wound epoxy cylinders (90% efficient because of PV/T=k heating), or liquified, about 75% efficient. Needs to be used in PEM fuel cells (cars, grid) since SOFC (Bloom Energy) crack and have poor lifetimes, PEM are at best 60% efficient and use platinum catalyst on Nafion membranes. Expensive, why there aren’t many in commercial use anywhere despite years of Plugged Power trying and hyping. So 1*0.75*maybe 0.9*0.6= Maybe 0.41 net hydrogen energy efficiency. Same as CCGT. But with a lot more capital expense for an ‘industry’ that does not exist yet for good reason.
Now over at Judith’s a while ago we recalculated the faulty EIA LCOE for on shore wind. 2.15x CCGT. So Australia green hydrogen will be at best as energy useful as natgas at over twice the cost. Yup that is what makes it ‘green’. GREEN anything means more expensive AND more problematic.
What’s done with all the bits of natural gas that aren’t hydrogen?
Those are CO2. A bit of a ‘problem’, as you already knew.
The compression/liqufaction step is really expensive, the product is really dangerous, and between hard and impossible to store for any length of time. Far better to use it as a raw material to make ammonia or a hydrocarbon. Methanol is really good.
C + H2O + 2H = CH3OH. Methanol runs conventional ICE very well. Remove a some water from the Methanol and you get Dimethyl ether (CH3-O-CH3), which is a very good diesel fuel that burns very clean.
Australia has an excellent geography for this. there is basically nothing along the southern coast but thousands of square miles of desert. Cover it with solar panels. Pump sea water up, electrolyse it. You can make ammonia there without importing raw materials.
I am sure that the economics suck, but if fossil fuels are banned, we will have to find some source of fuels.
Maybe ICE engines could be built to run well on methanol but I remember quite well all the effort and studies when the US started adding alcohol to gasoline. Many things were reportedly tried to make methanol work but engines using it had lower life expectancies than in the early days of auto development. That is why ethanol is used (still a poor, illogical choice but tax subsidies drives that too).
From personal experience driving a diesel 4WD equipped with Diesel-Gas combined fuel system, LPG injected into the Diesel fuel at a rate of 20 per cent LPG, the power and torque increased by better than 20 per cent.
The reason being that with LPG-Diesel mixed combustion resulted in lower particulates created, so the Diesel was used more efficiently and emissions were much lower.
I also have experience with Petrol Internal Combustion Engines equipped with dual-fuel LPG or Petrol as selected by the driver. Injected systems were very efficient and produced lower emissions than for Petrol with no loss of engine performance.
Earlier systems were not injected and were less efficient.
Australia has an abundance of LPG, LNG can also be used.
A builder I know had a Ford Falcon 1-tonne capacity truck on LPG fuel only and was happy with it, his only complaint was that if the LPG tank ran out there was no roadside refuelling and he had to get his vehicle towed.
Years ago, Indianapolis race cars ran on methanol. It has a very high octane rating and burns very clean. Any problems such as those you refer to are very easily solved.
DME used in diesels is an alternative. Another possibility is to work the methanol into butanol which is pretty much plug and play for octane.
Let us keep our eyes on the big game here. Greens are declaring fossil fuels off limits. They are touting hydrogen as a replacement for ffs in those contexts where electricity or batteries are unsuited. Airplanes, ships, trucks, and farm equipment cannot be run on batteries.
But, hydrogen is expensive, dangerous, extraordinarily difficult to store and transport — unsuited for the proposed uses.
If we have to play the game under green rules, the answer is to use the hydrogen to make simple useful molecules, ones that can be used directly or easily processed into useful products.
Walter Sobchak : ”…. C + H2O + 2H = CH3OH …..”
The feed contains C, Carbon, and will end up as CO2 in the engine exhaust gas.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
The question for the anti fossil fuel people will be what is the source of the carbon.
If it is fossil fuels, e.g. coal, then it will be like burning an ff like methane.
You could use organic sources of carbon, such as trash, garbage, sewerage, agricultural wastes, and forest duff.
Joule for joule burning methane, methanol, or DME produces less CO2 than burning coal because much of the energy comes from the entrained hydrogen.
The issue here is not the real world. In a real world without green lunatics, you would just use ffs and not think about grossly dangerous and uneconomic stupidities like hydrogen. The issue here is playing the green game.
“Dimethyl ether (CH3-O-CH3), which is a very good diesel fuel that burns very clean”. A liquid with a boiling point of about 34 °C is unlikely to be a good diesel fuel. And what does it mean “burns very clean”? When burned, the same CO2 and H2O are obtained from it.
“Pump sea water up, electrolyse it”. Sea water contains chlorides. What are you going to do with the chlorine that will be released during electrolysis?
Either desalinate first or simply dissolve the Cl in the process effluent. The effluent will be enriched for Na which stays dissolved. The process sludge will be stuff like Fe and Cu.
I am not advertising the process as cheap or easy, just politically correct.
Rud, you forgot the first step before the electolysis: The water that you have to électrolyse must be very pure. It must be distillated twice before being poured in the electrolyser. This, too, consumes energy ans lowers your total efficiency by 35%
Why?
Making epoxy cylinders without evil petrochemicals could be interesting.
Read this great book on the subject on why fossil fuels are really the only option.
The moral case for fossil fuels
I read somewhere that to deliver the same energy as one tanker of petrol to a filling station would take 20 hydrogen tankers.
Think it is about 16, not 20–but 20 might be right. Just did some research.
Energy density of LH2 is 8MJ/m^3, gasoline is 34MJ/m^3. So gas is about 4x. But LH2 boils at -423F, so must be shipped in a cryogenic tank. These are double walled. Inner tank hold the LH2. It’s surrounded by a ‘couple of feet’ of porous ‘insulation’ material, then a very strong outer tank. A high vacuum is then pulled between the two to make the cryogenic tank, which is really a very big vacuum thermos.
Now a ‘couple of feet’ means 4 feet of diameter loss, so on a standard length/width 8 foot diameter class 8 truck tanker you lose via pi*r^2 about 75% of the storage volume. So shipping 1/4 as much per tanker times 1/4 the energy density per volume means 4*4 16 times as many tankers for LH2 as for gasoline/petrol.
Doesn’t a small amount need to be vented as the H2 warms up?
Most definitely.
I haven’t worked with H2, but LOX dewars get your attention when the relief valve opens.
Think of the children of the tanker drivers.
extra fuel for the larger number of tankers.
Sorry, Rud, but your description of LH2 tanker volume constraints is wrong, as are all of the statements about the extreme hazards of operating them.
LH2 tank trucks carry the same liquid volume as do gasoline tank trucks, 11,600 gallons. Some special versions carry as much as 17,000 gallons. The US LH2 production and transportation infrastructure was developed largely to support the Apollo Program. The Saturn V rocket, for example, used 327,000 gallons per flight. The Space Shuttle used 395,600 gallons per flight. Most of this was produced at Air Products in Ontario, CA, and transported by over-the-road truck.
Has anyone ever heard of a US LH2 tank truck accident? I have never heard of a single one, and I was in the rocket business most of my life.
The tanks on the trucks are indeed vacuum jacketed, but the intervening insulation is relatively thin multi-layer insulation. Liquid helium, which is even colder, is transported by rail car in tanks of similar construction; the multi-layer insulation allows coast-to-coast LHe transport by rail with very little loss.
That said, the cost is high to maintain this level of safety, and that alone precludes it from taking over the transport of energy.
“I read somewhere that to deliver the same energy as one tanker of petrol to a filling station would take
2015 hydrogen tankers.”You’ll find it in –Hydrogen for transport and the B&E report
https://planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
under the heading ‘How do you transport hydrogen?’
15yrs old & things have moved on; but not much, as the basic laws of physic & chemistry stubbornly refuse to change.
That’s ok, Brandon will sign an execute order….
Waffle word warning.
A real business expert would know that waffle word is fraud. Unsurprising that the corrupted Australia Universities have professors like John Mathews, Professor Emeritus of Macquarie Business School could publicly spout such drivel.
You know he has his fingers crossed, as in the back of his mind he knows the ‘levelized cost of energy’ supports alleged renewables like hydrogen through onerous taxes.
Professor “emeritus” means he is retired already. That means he will never make it to 2050 to test his predictions. No need to cross your fingers when there is zero risk of being held accountable for your actions.
We will spit on his tomb. Poor consolation
I wonder how they generate the juice needed to make the hydrogen? I know, they burn hydrogen! Oh wait.
There is a Carbon Capture plant planned for a town called Merritt in BC Canada. Carbon Engineering intends to create 35,200 tonnes of Hydrogen using electrolysis (BC Hydro). They will also Capture 250,000 tonnes of CO2, and create 103M liters of low carbon fuel annually.
What they don’t tell are details such as it requires 48kWh to make 1 Kg of Hydrogen, and 35,200,000 Kg of hydrogen would require 1,689.6 GWH of energy. This does NOT include the CO2 capture and all the other processing the plant would do.
1,689.6 GWH plus ~800GWH for carbon capture is like 1/2 of the new Site-C dam capacity of 5100 GWH. It is enormous! The dam not yet finished and so far costs 16 billion dollars. You might as well consider 1/2 the cost of the dam in the cost of the Merritt plant.
Carbon Engineering states their plant requires 315MW. So it really adds up to half of the Site-C dam.
Will this new hydrogen economy interfere with the delivery of relatively cheap energy for average people?
https://www.castanet.net/news/Kamloops/348618/Province-contributes-2-million-towards-first-of-its-kind-carbon-capture-energy-plant-proposed-for-Merritt
Minor quibble, it’s “MWh”.
Sure. 315 MW is as it is written in the article. It does imply instantaneous power. 315 MW for 1h is 315 MWh. Over a year, it will be 2700 GWH.
Just to quibble again, it’s “GWh” 😀
Doesn’t matter how you express it – it’s still a shedload, that could be used for many more productive purposes.
And even I, as a platinum card carrying pedant, can overlook Jeff’s faux pas with capitals 🙂
Wouldn’t that be a Faux Pas?
Sorry, I’ll get my coat….
Shouldn’t that be “platinum card-carrying pedant?”
How about –
“platinum-card-carrying” pedant.
(Too many hyphens are barely enough, I always say. 🙂 )
I’ll see their carbon capture scheme and counter with this: China has just announced that they will reach peak carbon by 2030 and net zero by 2060. Guess who wins that tug-of-war?
They extract CO2 from the air with a caustic solution and regenerate the solution. Has ugly corrosion, and hazardous chemical aspects, that they don’t talk about in the present direct extraction of research money mode.
… billions of dollars of TAXPAYERS money.
‘Brandon’ has infiltrated the professor’s mind.
We’re getting this propaganda daily via email and in our local Brisbane rag, the Courier Mail, peddled by its ‘senior’ journalist, Joe Hildebrand. The claims are excruciatingly painful they are so blatantly wrong.
No, you don’t understand. They no longer need to take all of your money, they just print some more!
Unlimited money! What’s not to like?
Of course, the money you do have will be worth less every day. That’s not a problem, though, it’s a feature. They want you to spend, spend, spend, not to actually save! If you get into financial difficulties, I’m sure the government can arrange a government-backed payday loan. Just don’t look at the APR…
Unlimited money! What’s not to like?
If you shoot the sheets of newly printed dollar bills straight from the printing presses and right into the electrical turbines, have you managed to create the world’s first perpetual motion machine?
They could just take all the paper for the money they want to print to rob people of their savings and burn it instead – they’ll get more energy from that then they ever will on a “net” basis from hydrogen.
Only a very tiny percentage of created “money” is ever printed. Almost all exist only in computer files.
And what is that emeritus dreaming at night ??? 😀
The good thing about this emeritus is that he is no longer poisoning student minds with nonsense.
Typical non technical person making revelations about technical subjects they know nothing about but get media attention because their prognostications fulfill the Green narrative.
Similar to you Eric I also used to get the fresh computer science graduates to train as well, used to say exactly the same thing half of what they had been taught was trash, the only difficult part was working out which half.
Well he’s walking through the clouds
With a circus mind that’s running round
Butterflies and zebras
And moonbeams and fairy tales
That’s all he ever thinks about
Riding with the wind.
With apologies to Jimi Hendrix
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, those few who make cars that use “clean, abundant, inexpensive hydrogen” convert it to clean watervapor. Is that not the number one greenhouse gas, and now you’d be increasing it at ground level?
Yes! Normally energy has to be supplied in the form or heat or wind to convert liquid water to vapor. In this scheme, each and every car, truck, an building is a functional converter supplying freshly made water vapor. We can probably expect that urban areas will probably have 100% relative humidity 24/7.
since it is a political creation, it is whatever it is said to be
The “Macquarie Business School” clearly needs to have any accreditation stripped immediately. I would say this if a *student* earning a degree from said “school” reached such colossally stupid conclusions. When a “Professor Emeritus” spouts such utter twaddle, you know the “school” is incapable of teaching anything to anyone that is worth $0.02 (Australian).
This is great news. Let’s hope the wind always blows when the sun doesn’t shine. Oh that’s right. Batteries.
My former coworker works at HYZON near Detroit, Mi. fuel cell vehicles, I am concerned about where will they get all this hydrogen and how to carry it safely. The project sounds like a grant farm just like I worked on the hydraulic hybrid UPS truck.
I recently wrote the Oz PM to inform him that our own CSIRO states on their web site that the Southern Hemisphere is a net sink of CO2 and the source is the Northern half. Therefore, Oz does not need to do much at all about CO2
His response (my bold):
On the one hand he accepts the CSIRO findings but disagrees with me when I point out their findings that go against his agenda.
I might also point out that his response letter is almost identical to one I received 10 months ago. They are merely boiler-plate letters intended to placate us peons while the pollies go about saving the world.
Cone on, man. You can’t expect him to think as well as ruin the country!
(unintended auto correct, but beautiful in its execution)
Often enough they will completely change the topic and pretend it is an adequate answer to your inquiry.
The Finnish company Wartsila (big reciprocating engines, among other products) just released the following paper, which makes some pretty bold claims about the cost competitiveness of ‘renewable energy’ and sees a big role for ‘green’ hydrogen.
https://pages.wartsila.digital/webmail/251562/555052671/5ffcf6a3f91b00cf0f02d5103be336db180ffb654f0b2c8bf65a9df80acd264f
Not a lot of detail behind their assumptions…being a Wartsila shareholder, I’ve asked if they have a detailed technical appendix that I could get. We’ll see…
Sell Wartsila, buy XOM a/o CVX.
My motto: Do as I do, not as I teach.
Does “emeritus” mean “clueless”?
If hydrogen were such a great substitute for fossil fuels there would be no need for
governmenttaxpayer handouts, sounds like another de@d-end boondoggle in the making.