From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
.
h/t Patsy Lacey
ESSEN, Germany, June 12 (Reuters) – Investor caution about hydrogen as a future source of energy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases did not suggest slowing resolve to phase out fossil fuels, German industry executives and policymakers said on Wednesday, pleading for patience.
They told a conference organised by the Handelsblatt business newspaper that regulatory support for new value chains would bring about a large-scale switch to renewably derived hydrogen energy early next decade.
Germany wants national electrolysis capacity of 10 gigawatts (GW) by 2030. Last month, it approved an acceleration bill to help decarbonise the EU’s lead industry, whose manufacturers are key to future hydrogen consumption.
Critics say that final investment decisions on only 300 MW of projects, according to data presented by utility E.ON , indicate of possible failure, while reliance on future bulk imports is nebulous.
If Germany does not manage the move to hydrogen, it will weaken the entire bloc’s chances of adopting it and competing successfully with the United States and China.
TRANSLATION
Without massive subsidies, hydrogen is a non-starter in Germany.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Without subsidies all Green energy is a non starter. If there were no subsidies we would not have half the problems of higher energy costs that we have now
Electrolyzing hydrogen from wind turbines and solar panels is a great way of providing Green Energy – except that there is no extra energy to make it, no known technology to transport it, and no place or way to place sufficient quantities of it where it can be used. It’s relatively easy to convert an IC engine to use it, or a furnace to burn it, but there is simply no feasible way to make it and get it to where it is needed. It weakens steel pipelines and fittings, it can’t be feasibly liquified. Even at 10,000 psi it requires 7 times the volume of liquid petroleum fuel to contain the same energy (not including the tank that contains it). It might be possible to run a 747-cargo jet to get the same range it has today, but the entire cargo load would have to be used to contain the fuel.
“Electrolyzing hydrogen from wind turbines and solar panels is a great way of providing Green Energy”
No, it is not. Commercial electrolysis cannot run on intermittent power.
Electrolysis has to use Direct Current, while most generators produce Alternating Current. There is considerable energy loss in the rectifiers used to convert AC to DC.
‘Green energy’ is inherently intermittent so yes, it is /sarc
While I appreciate your post, I do have to correct you on hydrogen transport. The economics are unclear right now, but a couple of companies in Japan, one Eneos, that has a production facility in Australia, are transporting hydrogen as liquids on carriers (basically ammonia or toluene). I think ammonia is a horrible idea but it’s getting traction. Toluene can transport the hydrogen in one direction and then be used in gasoline. I work in an area that’s peripheral to this industry, so I know a lot about it. I actually think it will work, at least until something better comes along.
One link of many:
https://www.eneos.co.jp/english/company/rd/intro/low_carbon/dmch.html
So they propose to take toluene, react it with hydrogen to saturate the three double bonds in the benzene ring, transport it and then react it again to liberate the hydrogen and toluene. I notice that they don’t mention the efficiency of the process. I am a chemical engineer (except in the state of Texas) and I see multiple unit operations here, all losing energy to wasted heat. Companies do not import hydrogen if they need it for a process, they make it on-site. There is an economic reason for this.
They’re not proposing it, they’re doing it now in Japan. This is what the other company, Chiyoda, is saying:
https://www.chiyodacorp.com/en/service/spera-hydrogen/innovations/
Chiyoda spent a lot of time developing the catalysts and there’s an article somewhere saying it was 99% one way and 98% the other. I’ll try to find it. That’s not too surprising, given the simplicity of the reaction + a lot of work.
I think it got a boost when the Chairman of Toyota was yammering about switching to hydrogen to power their vehicles. Whatever, it’s not taxpayer money funding this.
There’s also a DOE white paper talking about transport and it’s costs, if I’m recalling correctly from Houston to San Francisco – ships vs trucks. I’ll find that too.
While I have your interest, do you have access to 100Kg scale production not the above, but high value solid chemicals. If so, where are you located? I might be PMing you.
The economics are abundantly clear. Hydrogen is not an energy source and has no economic value, it is yet another wealth transfer scheme in a make-believe ‘green’ suit.
I was referring to the economics of hydrogen transport by carrier molecules. Whether or not the hydrogen industry in total will be viable economically, I don’t know, but I do know that it’s not abundantly clear at this point.
The hydrogen “industry” would be non-existent absent massive subsidies, so the issue of whether a certain mode of transport of what is clearly an economic taxpayer money sinkhole as a whole is academic.
I agree with the part after “except,” but you fumbled the hand-off. Wind turbines and solar panels produce no useful energy to speak of, and all the energy inputs into making them, transporting them, backing them up, and serially replacing them come from coal, oil and gas.
Speak of the devil:
Dang, beat me to it (by 3 minutes) though your picture paints a thousand words while I used just 14
How about these:
how about this
at least at that refinery, people are working with good income- I see nobody working on the solar “farm”
You will in about 20 years when they replace the entire array…
20 years.. wow , you are generous. !
More like until the next Hail Storm
Does anyone actually think that these solar panels will be dismantled and replaced every 25 years for the next 75 years when a reliable 24/7 300 MW SMR can do a far superior job for the same time frame? Surely not.
To be fair, I have seen people in the UK cleaning them and strimming the undergrowth. Pity they removed the sheep before they built the subsidy farm.
Oh I’ve been workin’ on the Solar Farm
for only 4 hours a day
Oh I’ve been workin’ on the Solar Farm
bein’ subsidized for 8 hours pay
….
Shirley, they must employ an army of highly skilled well paid window washers and squeegee operators.😁
Maybe they can let the homeless that make a mess of people’s windshields in big cities (or probably every town in California) spend their days there plying their trade for a few bucks.
You mean this
On a collision course: 16 Griffon Vultures killed by wind turbines in Aragon, Spain – Vulture Conservation Foundation (4vultures.org)
Big difference is that oil ships do everything they can to avoid oil spills.
The wind turbine barbarians KNOW that they will kill avian wildlife… and JUST DON’T CARE !!
usernitwit wants to pretend that it isn’t their bank accounts driving it.
Same with all the loonies. Ooooh bigmouth says he’s a socialist and planet saver. YAY count me in, I’m useful.
And the birds covered in oil can be cleaned up with some Dove dish soap and go on to normal lives;the ones that hit turbine blades are finished.
The second image was caused by an Tsumani… and bad planning.
Wind turbine installers KNOW they are going to kill birds, and bats, and other avian creatures…
… but install them anyway !!
Don’t forget the whales.
Just not the wrong whales… The Right Whales
The second image was Chernobyl caused by poor design and management.
Nuclear problems, however, are very rare but people like MyUserName cite them as examples of why we shouldn’t choose nuclear over unreliables.
If CO2 is an issue and we need to wean ourselves off reliable coal, gas and oil, nuclear is the only way
How about this
Navarro wind farm kills one Vulture every three days
The same cannot be stated about oil spills as oil spills don’t happen daily.
The same cannot be said about Chernobyl incidents as Chernobyl incidents don’t happen daily. In fact only 2 people were directly killed in the accident and 28 others later from radiation induced sickness. (Don’t trust a socialist regimen to do what’s best for the people.)
Estimates of the number of birds killed by wind turbines each year range from 140,000 to 1.2 million. However, these numbers are likely an underestimate because many deaths go undetected. Some studies estimate that wind turbines kill 0.269 birds per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced
The median is just over 650,000 birds annually or 1.2 birds per year per turbine
So Hydrogen took off, and landed in the lap of popularity like the Hindenburg
That image brings a tear to my eyes just thinking about it
If hydrogen was a better way to store electricity than batteries, it would already be in common use.
Water is a better way to store energy than Batteries
Coal is a better way to store energy than Batteries
Oil is a better way to store energy than Batteries
Gas is a better way to store energy than Batteries
Uranium is a better way to store energy than Batteries
Heck, even Trees are a better way to store energy than Batteries
Face it, when it comes to energy storage, nature beats batteries Anode Down
“Heck, even Trees are a better way to store energy than Batteries”
right, and they can even produce energy- with the help of the sun, soil, water and lots of hard working people
Don’t forget the CO2!
Oh Yummmm… Lots of free government funding up for grabs !! 😉
No-one is going to corrupt that, though… now are they !
If Germany does not manage to beat Scotland tonight…..
Hydrogen is a non-starter … because of the laws of physics !!!
Hydrogen is not found free in nature–it has to be produced by chemical reaction, which requires energy input. If electrolysis of water is used to produce hydrogen, the energy obtained by burning it back to water merely recuperates the energy used to generate it, less the inevitable losses in any energy conversion device, thanks to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Hydrogen can also be produced by a steam-methane reformer, which is commonly used to generate hydrogen in petroleum refineries, which is then used to desulfurize petroleum distillates. The overall reaction is
CH4 + 2 H2O –> CO2 + 4 H2
This works in a refinery because the goal is to use hydrogen to desulfurize fuel. But from an energy point of view, this reaction requires energy input, and also generates a molecule of CO2, while using hydrogen as a fuel is supposed to avoid emitting CO2.
If the four hydrogen molecules are burned, they generate four molecules of steam, two of which replace the steam consumed in the above reaction, for a net two molecules of steam generated.
But if methane is simply burned directly,
CH4 + 2 O2 –> CO2 + 2 H2O
we get the same result: one molecule of CO2, and a net two molecules of steam. But direct burning of methane yields the same net theoretical energy as the reforming reaction plus burning hydrogen, but less energy is lost because there is only one conversion step by direct combustion of methane as compared to two conversion steps for reforming plus burning hydrogen.
It is therefore more advantageous to simply burn methane (natural gas) than to “reform” it to hydrogen and burn hydrogen. Although hydrogen yields 2.5 times more energy per unit mass than methane, a given volume can contain 8 times more mass of methane than hydrogen at the same temperature and pressure. On a volume basis, burning natural gas yields 3.2 times more energy than hydrogen (energy density 3.2 times higher for natural gas than hydrogen).
Some Nuclear Reactors also produce Hydrogen as an unfortunate byproduct of fuel rod overheating…
Like Fukushima Daiichi NPP
The fuel rods in the reactor core were made from a zirconium alloy called Zircaloy, which is normally inert at operating temperatures of around 572°F (300°C). However, when the rods reached temperatures of over 2,190°F (1,200°C) due to a lack of fresh water to cool them, the Zircaloy could react with steam to produce hydrogen gas
That Hydrogen was easy to release.
On the renewable side, people aren’t fond of hydrogen either. It’s seen as a way for the fossil fuel industry to stay relevant via grey hydrogen, centralized energy distribution networks and monopolys.
So the main problem here is that it will be made with renewable energy. If only grey hydrogen was possible, cfact would praise it as the best way to save the whales 😀
‘…cfact would praise it as the best way to save the whales.’
Petroleum already saved the whales. Offshore wind, a direct result of climate alarmism, puts them at risk.
I’m absolutely stunned that people who claim to be concerned about the environment, always yammering about “save the whales”, etc. aren’t aware of this.
From Wikipeidia (yeah, I know):
“Whaling largely targeted the collection of blubber: whalers rendered it into oil in try pots, or later, in vats on factory ships. The oil could serve in the manufacture of soap, leather, and cosmetics.[13] Whale oil was used in candles as wax, and in oil lamps as fuel.”
The whales were saved when petroleum was used to replace whale oil to produce these products.
Wonder what Photo MyUselessname might come up with in answer to this.
Most people know this, but as with the guild system, an improvement when it came up, we now move on to something better. Progress, what an amazing concept – although you probably still light your home with candles and oil lamps?
You’re welcome
Unfortunately Part time Wind and Solar cannot fill energy needs 24/7/365 neither separate or combined. They aren’t progress, they’re regressive requiring a reversion to 1800’s tech
Yeah isn’t it amusing that morons who label themselves “progressive” actually pursue policies that are entirely “regressive”?
I guess that’s just what morons do, right?
Candles, yes. Have comfortable AC in summer from fossil and nuclear fuel and comfortable heat in the winter from natural gas (still legal here).
“although you probably still light your home with candles and oil lamps?”
Nope.. we use ELECTRIC lights powered by COAL-FIRED electricity.
The Net-zero agenda will send people back to candles and whale-oil lamps.
The same Coal Power MyUser uses to recharge their EV at home from the grid
No coal power for me, thanks. But I bet you use already quite a lot of renewables by now, or did you go off-grid with your own diesel-generator?
I live in Commiefornia so the state is rather heavy in ruinables at 39% and its reflected in the rates I pay at 34¢/kWH off peak and 56¢/kWH on peak.
Although the last In State Coal Plant was shut down the state utilities still operate Coal Power out of state and import the electrons via the grid
The 1,900 MW Intermountain Power Plant in Utah which delivers power to the LA Dept of Water and Power
The 1,540 MW Four Corners Gen Start in New Mexico pushes power to So. Cal. Ed.
So the state isn’t really Coal Free, they’ve just outsourced their Coal Generation
I do get a portion of my electricity from Ruinables (and it’s reflected in the rates I pay) but the vast majority of my electric generation still comes from reliable fossil fuel sources and Nuclear
We’re not moving on. Trillions squandered on windmills and fossil fuels are now, what was it 83% instead of 84% of total energy?
You have to be an idiot to believe there is a “transition” going on.
The only Trans-ition taking place is the number of failed male athletes claiming to be Trans to compete against biological females
Hydrogen will NEVER be made with renewable energy….
The process requires a very regular electricity supply.
Fossil Fuels provide some 80% of world energy, and it isn’t changing
Wind and solar are a tiny insignificant part, at best.
The Cleantech Revolution
It’s exponential, disruptive, and now
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/06/RMI-Cleantech-Revolution-pdf.pdf
Like all centrally-planned, coercively-implemented ends, your ‘Cleantech-Revolution’ is ‘disruptive’ in the sense that it threatens all of the economic progress made since the beginning of the industrial age.
87 pages of bullshit
Poor gullible LUSER.
Yes, the so called “clean” energy is highly disruptive…. all the time.
The best hydrogen storage and release mechanism is CH4, four Hydrogen atoms bonded to a single Carbon atom. Easy to store, easy to separate and the byproduct is the major molecule plants need to photo synthesize their own energy and return Oxygen to the environment for Us to breathe.
There is no such thing as “renewable energy” or perpetual motion machines.
What don’t you understand?
Renewable energy is a fallacy. All of the energy inputs into making windmills and solar panels, transporting them, backing them up when they aren’t working (most of the time) and serially replacing them, etc. come from coal, oil and gas.
As would be any hydrogen produced using *any* of the poor quality power the windmills and solar panels occasionally produce.
Expending the energy on electrolysis to then use the hydrogen as energy? That seems largely wasteful. Hard to make, hard to move, hard to store, what’s not to love?
It takes more energy to produce hydrogen, than one can get out of the hydrogen produced.
And then there is embrittelment, as hydrogen destroys the pipes that carry it..
The best storage and release mechanism for Hydrogen is Carbon…CH4. It is easily stored, easily transported and the release mechanism is self sustaining once started but still easy to halt
“a large-scale switch to renewably derived hydrogen energy early next decade.”
So this will happen in the next 10 years. Reminds me of another technology that is always 10 years away…. Oh, what is it, can’t remember..?
The nuclear renaissance? SMRs?
Thorium???
Fusion???
Orbo???
Larger Nuclear Reactors are much better like Diablo Canyon (DCPP) in California. 2 – 1100MW units operating continuously for 39 years without incident. California, the worlds 5th largest economy could be powered, Carbon Emission Free, from 20 DCPPs and require only 500 acres of land to do so
“regulatory support for new value chains” Gag reflex engaged.
In other words, give us loads more taxpayers money to try and make a failed policy at least look slightly less failed.
First we spent trillions on gasoline production, but that worked and still does. Trillions of taxpayer dollars were then spent on electrifying society for the cars, now that’s proved to be a failure we’ll spend trillions on rolling out hydrogen. And the question remains where is there adequate clean electricity to make green hydrogen. God save us from the moronic socialists.
German Hydrogen Rollout Fails To Take Off
====$=
Hydrogen bomb or Graf Zeppelin?
The amount of Hydrogen a solar panel can create in its lifetime has less energy than the coal burned to build the solar panel.
Source?
No thanks, I like my revenge served cold, with just a dusting of glee.
Like this?
We get more useful energy out of renewables than fossil fuels
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/we-get-more-useful-energy-out-of-renewables-than-fossil-fuels/
Glee indeed.
Did you even read the article or do you just copy-and-paste headlines?
I did read the article.
So many assertions about energy sources, generation, distribution and use.
No evidentiary references.
If you were tagging your short-form questions on to the end of this article as you read it (which I often do), your questions content would be at least twice as long as the 20 paragraphs of the article.
I think the assertions and conclusions in this article really were pulled out of their ARS technica.
ARSE-technica is a far-left propaganda site, basically devoid of any science or rational thought.
Just the sort of low-intellect place a Luser would cite.
Since it TAKES coal, oil and gas to make worse-than-useless windmills and solar panels (and back them up since they don’t work more often than they do), your “renewables” are STILL dependent 100% on fossil fuels.
Without massive subsidies, hydrogen is a non-starter everywhere and we all can remember the footage of the Hindenberg too.
Here’s an idea.
Remove all subsidies.
Remove solar and wind from the grid and devote their power to producing hydrogen.
Then use the hydrogen as the backup (instead of fossil fuels and nuclear) for wind and solar when they fail in order to produce more hydrogen!
(With all the funding being private, of course.)
Efforts to remove billions in US fossil fuel subsidies face uphill battle
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/efforts-to-remove-billions-in-us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-face-uphill-battle-75649055
A subsidy is … Money Paid by the Government to a business for doing no work or creating nothing of value.
A Tax Break is … Money the Government says the Business doesn’t have to pay on money earned from goods created or services provided AFTER doing Work
Subsidy = do nothing and make money
Tax Break = do something and save money
Fossil Fuel producers get tax breaks (so do grocery stores, clothing stores, theaters, car sales, even Big Wind and Solar) In fact every business that pays taxes gets tax breaks…even individuals get tax breaks
Wind and Solar get Subsidies…money paid for doing nothing. EVs also get subsidies.
What Subsidies do Fossil Fuels get?
You’re arguing with someone who believes the State has a higher call on economic surpluses than do the individuals that create them.
Bryan A, I know your intentions are good but you’re wasting your time. As I’ve said before, you can’t have a rational discussion with irrational people.
It’s like beating your head against a wall…but you feel oh so much better when you finally stop
Put simply – a tax on profit is a tax on (income minus expense), If you calculate an amount of tax for just the expense, that isn’t a tax break it’s just an abstract notion.
Very good point
User said: “Efforts to remove billions in US fossil fuel subsidies face uphill battle”
I won’t be standing in the way. Let the market decide what works and is worth it.
I originally said:
“Here’s an idea.
Remove all subsidies.
Remove solar and wind from the grid and devote their power to producing hydrogen.
Then use the hydrogen as the backup (instead of fossil fuels and nuclear) for wind and solar when they fail in order to produce more hydrogen!
(With all the funding being private, of course.)”
You ignore the private funding part.
“Renewables”, which you’d define as wind and solar (but only include hydro to inflate the numbers) would go bankrupt if left to only private investors.
Wind and Solar are not worth the investment from the private sector without Government to pay off the CEOs for their political support.
Luser and his fellow climate creeps, don’t know the difference a subsidies and totally legitimate tax breaks.
DUMB !!
Why do you qualify this with “German” and “in Germany?”
Without massive subsidies, hydrogen is a non-starter, PERIOD.
Further, hydrogen IS NOT AN ENERGY “SOURCE” AT ALL. It is an energy sink and a waste of resources. Producing it will consume more energy then will result of burning the hydrogen, and it’s “production” is all fossil fuel dependent (and that INCLUDES any misnamed ‘green hydrogen,’ since coal, oil and gas produce and transport the worse-than-useless windmills and solar panels and provide the backup when they are more often than not non-functional).
Without massive subsidies,
hydrogen isrenewables are a non-starterin Germany.FTFY