Author Topic: Energy Politics & Science  (Read 568273 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: A quick video showing how the west's sanctions worked on Russia
« Reply #1000 on: August 30, 2022, 09:08:53 AM »
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/114/665/048/playable/ebf42791276aec08.mp4

Then the platform collapsed and crushed NATO.

https://justthenews.com/world/europe/russian-oil-sales-roaring-despite-sanctions

"Russia is swimming in cash," Elina Ribakova, deputy chief economist at the Institute of International Finance, told The Wall Street Journal.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Europe is fcuked! (Us too)
« Reply #1002 on: August 31, 2022, 08:44:01 AM »



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: Europe is fcuked! (Us too)
« Reply #1005 on: August 31, 2022, 11:54:09 AM »
"This winter is when things go over the cliff."


  - What about global warming?  The age of winter is over, I was told.

If Europe has no money and has no heat, how many people die?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: Europe is fcuked! (Us too)
« Reply #1006 on: August 31, 2022, 12:08:43 PM »
"This winter is when things go over the cliff."


  - What about global warming?  The age of winter is over, I was told.

If Europe has no money and has no heat, how many people die?

A lot. Even more die from disease, violence and starvation. Civil wars.

Governments will collapse.

Either the imported savages will create their islamic states on european soil, or they will become one with the soil.

Cage match, win or die.

Good thing that can't happen here!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
When will the energy police shut down commercial flights? 36,000 gallons
« Reply #1008 on: September 01, 2022, 08:10:50 AM »
Is that when liberals will abandon the fight against fossil fuels.

"Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

[Doug:  What is the weight of a battery that would contain that amount of energy?]

This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon"
https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm

One small flaw in the straw comparison.  If not for air travel, one would not make an unnecessary 8000 mile round trip flight to Europe or a 15,000 round trip to Asia.  You aren't going to drive there

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: When will the energy police shut down commercial flights? 36,000 gallons
« Reply #1009 on: September 01, 2022, 08:19:51 AM »
Don't worry, when the left is done, there won't be international flights, except for the elites on their private jets.


Is that when liberals will abandon the fight against fossil fuels.

"Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

[Doug:  What is the weight of a battery that would contain that amount of energy?]

This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon"
https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm

One small flaw in the straw comparison.  If not for air travel, one would not make an unnecessary 8000 mile round trip flight to Europe or a 15,000 round trip to Asia.  You aren't going to drive there

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Energy Politics, UK
« Reply #1011 on: September 01, 2022, 08:50:17 AM »
Brits are looking at 80% increases in electric utility bills this fall because of their unworkable green energy policies.  The Sun newspaper In the UK just published what this means for the cost of using common household appliances - from hairdryers to TVs to the stove to washers and dryers.

https://unleashprosperitynow.us19.list-manage.com/track/click?u=dc8d30edd7976d2ddf9c2bf96&id=89b92fe256&e=17d44a0477

Good thing that can't happen here.  Oops, already did.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
When will the energy police shut down commercial flights? 36,000 gallons/flight
« Reply #1012 on: September 01, 2022, 09:28:11 AM »
quote author=G M
Don't worry, when the left is done, there won't be international flights, except for the elites on their private jets.
--------------------

I thought you were going to say, there won't be any international flights because there will be only one 'nation'.

In my anecdotal world, it is the left more than the right that needs to cross the ocean in order to have dream vacation. 



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: When will the energy police shut down commercial flights? 36,000 gallons/flight
« Reply #1013 on: September 01, 2022, 09:48:16 AM »
quote author=G M
Don't worry, when the left is done, there won't be international flights, except for the elites on their private jets.
--------------------

I thought you were going to say, there won't be any international flights because there will be only one 'nation'.

In my anecdotal world, it is the left more than the right that needs to cross the ocean in order to have dream vacation.

Food will be a luxury dream. Forget vacations.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1014 on: September 01, 2022, 11:38:25 AM »
 I want the URL to that Greta-bugs meme!

« Last Edit: September 01, 2022, 11:52:32 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1016 on: September 02, 2022, 05:10:35 AM »
Thank you, I will be playing this forward!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: When will the energy police shut down commercial flights? 36,000 gallons/flight
« Reply #1017 on: September 02, 2022, 07:07:09 AM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/european-private-jet-demand-soars-rich-avoid-travel-chaos

Stay in your pod and eat your bugs, peasant!

quote author=G M
Don't worry, when the left is done, there won't be international flights, except for the elites on their private jets.
--------------------

I thought you were going to say, there won't be any international flights because there will be only one 'nation'.

In my anecdotal world, it is the left more than the right that needs to cross the ocean in order to have dream vacation.

Food will be a luxury dream. Forget vacations.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Energy, no. of oil and gas rigs falls
« Reply #1019 on: September 04, 2022, 08:01:55 AM »
drilling slows while we deplete the strategic reserve for political purposes.  What.could.go.wrong.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/oil-and-gas-rig-count-falls-despite-high-global-demand

We SHOULD have enough natural gas in particular to stabilize our market and sell tankers of LNG to Europe.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2022, 08:04:36 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1022 on: September 05, 2022, 08:34:24 AM »
Useful chart (though Russia-Europe thread probably would have been better).  Just posted it on my FB page.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
WT: Greens reconsidering nuke power
« Reply #1023 on: September 06, 2022, 03:05:26 AM »
Alternative energy advocates rethink nuclear opposition

Power source is clean, reliable

BY RAMSEY TOUCHBERRY THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Nuclear power, once shunned by many Democrats and environmentalists, is gaining acceptance among the party and activists as a clean alternative to fossil fuels amid soaring energy costs and a sluggish transition to renewables.

Proponents argue that the carbon- free energy source is clean and affordable, can be generated around the clock and is already prevalent. Wind and solar power, meanwhile, are intermittent and hamstrung by limited battery storage capabilities.

“There’s been a slow progression, but sufficient modeling that has been done has convinced a lot of people in the environmental community, certainly around the importance of preserving the existing fleet,” said Doug Vine, director of energy analysis at the nonpartisan Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “There’s a recognition of not wanting to backslide on emissions reductions.”

Evidence of the changing tune among climate hawks is prevalent.

Democrats pumped billions of dollars into nuclear tax incentives in their recently approved tax and climate spending legislation.

Included were production credits for existing facilities and incentives to create smaller reactors that are more affordable, quicker to build, safer to operate and last more than six decades.

As part of last year’s bipartisan infrastructure bill, $6 billion was allocated toward the country’s aging nuclear facilities. The Department of Energy’s top nuclear official, Kathryn Huff, recently told the Washington Examiner that the Biden administration is also focused on boosting domestic uranium enrichment, which is vital for nuclear energy production, to rely less on Russian supplies.

California and its Democratic leaders have reversed course and approved legislation to extend the life of its lone nuclear plant. They feared the scheduled closure of the Diablo Canyon facility could result in power shortages for years.

In a recent op-ed in The Sacramento Bee titled “Why I changed my mind about California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said the state “must consider every measure to counter the coming onslaught” of natural disasters.

“If California is to lead the clean energy transition, as state law mandates, Diablo must keep operating, at least for the time being,” the Democrat wrote.

Public sentiment has shifted slightly on nuclear power, though the country remains largely split.

A Pew Research poll from May 2021 showed that 47% opposed expanding nuclear energy. A Pew survey from January showed 26% opposed nuclear power and an increasing number, 37%, struck a neutral stance.

The U.S. had 54 nuclear plants, home to 92 reactors, operating in 28 states as of May. The average age of nuclear plants is 40 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Since 1990, nuclear power has accounted for about 20% of the country’s annual electricity production and makes up roughly half of all carbon-free electricity.

Over the past eight years, the U.S. has lost more than 10 gigawatts of nuclear power from 13 reactors, or the ability to power more than 5 million homes with zero emissions, Mr. Vine said.

Doug True, vice president and chief nuclear officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the incentives in Democrats’ tax and climate spending plan, dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act, will put “nuclear on the same level playing field as renewables.”

“Nuclear is one of those tools that can provide reliable power 24/7-365, as we’ve demonstrated over the last 50 years in a way that even renewables and storage would have difficulty,” he said at a recent event hosted by the U.S. Energy Association.

The fresh look at nuclear energy extends far beyond American borders, particularly in countries reliant on oil and natural gas imports that want to become more energy independent.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida directed his government last month to begin building smaller and safer nuclear reactors to meet its energy needs and its 2050 carbon-neutral deadline. The move marked a sharp reversal for the country, which shuttered many of its plants after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and said it would focus only on restarting plants.

South Korea reversed plans to phase out nuclear plants this year, and the United Kingdom wants to make nuclear power a pillar of its energy strategy. Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently greenlighted a multibillion-dollar plant.

Plenty of environmentalists still oppose nuclear power for multiple reasons, including costs, safety and hazardous waste disposal.

Greenpeace International considers nuclear energy “dirty, dangerous and expensive.” The Natural Resources Defense Council, which has a “Nuclear Power 101” page devoted to explaining “how its costs outweigh its benefits,” advocated against saving California’s Diablo Canyon plant.

“Late August in Sacramento is notorious for ill-considered proposals that could never survive rigorous analysis or inclusive public review and are never seen again,” Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the council’s energy program, wrote in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed. “This one should be soundly rejected.”

The Russia-Ukraine war has also renewed debates and concerns about nuclear energy. Russia’s shelling and takeover of some of Ukraine’s nuclear plants have been characterized as incredibly irresponsible and dangerous and prompted fears of a catastrophe like Chernobyl.

“You can’t design anything for war,” Bud Albright, president and CEO of the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council, said during the U.S. Energy Association event. “If you’re at war, bombs falling, you don’t design architecture for that, whether it’s a power plant or buildings.”


The nation’s aging nuclear facilities got a $6 billion shot in the arm from the infrastructure bill last year. The Biden administration wants the plants to stay open to continue producing a carbon-free source of power that helps combat climate change. ASSOCIATED PRESS

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Green Folly
« Reply #1024 on: September 06, 2022, 08:10:48 PM »
"burning wood still supplies more than five times the amount of global energy than all the world’s solar panels"

   - https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-energy-transition-delusion


[Doug]  Eliminate heating oil, natural gas and coal and that ratio gets worse, no matter how much of the globe we cover with solar panels.

84% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels.  (Only nuclear on a massive scale could rock that balance.)



https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/figure-1-Growth-in-Global-Energy-Supplies.png
« Last Edit: September 06, 2022, 08:12:42 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1025 on: September 07, 2022, 02:47:18 PM »
They, being the party in power, US anyway, intentionally cut energy supplies and intentionally drove up energy costs.

What happens when energy costs soar (like it's never happened before)?

Real people get hurt. All of them.  Businesses go out of business, especially manufacturers, and those jobs disappear.

News item:
"60%™of UK manufacturers may not survive the current energy price hikes."
https://www.makeuk.org/news-and-events/news/out-of-control-energy-bills-are-now-business-threatening-for-60-of-manufacturers

(This is not just UK.)

Well surprise, surprise, surprise.

Who saw THIS coming?

And out of all this, nothing got greener.

To call them f**king morons is to ignore the INTENTIONAL aspect of it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1026 on: September 07, 2022, 03:30:08 PM »
They, being the party in power, US anyway, intentionally cut energy supplies and intentionally drove up energy costs.

What happens when energy costs soar (like it's never happened before)?

Real people get hurt. All of them.  Businesses go out of business, especially manufacturers, and those jobs disappear.

News item:
"60%™of UK manufacturers may not survive the current energy price hikes."
https://www.makeuk.org/news-and-events/news/out-of-control-energy-bills-are-now-business-threatening-for-60-of-manufacturers

(This is not just UK.)

Well surprise, surprise, surprise.

Who saw THIS coming?

And out of all this, nothing got greener.

To call them f**king morons is to ignore the INTENTIONAL aspect of it.

They think poor, hungry, desperate people will be easy to control.

Sometimes they are, and sometimes they hang politicians in fits of rage.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
JP and MY
« Reply #1027 on: September 08, 2022, 03:11:26 AM »



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: New Brit PM gets it right
« Reply #1030 on: September 10, 2022, 07:40:46 AM »
"Too little, too late"

Yes, to help in the moment, but she did do it her first day in office. 

Biden shut down a world changing pipeline his first day in office.  Within a year we had war and famine.

We heard ANWR would take 10 years to develop (so why bother), that nuclear power plants take 10 years to build (so why bother) - for the past 30 + years.  We should have bothered.  Today they would power both gas and electric cars, and heat homes, with a little air conditioning for Calif too

Oil and gas operate in futures markets.  If all the governments started reversing all the anti-energy policies now, you'd be surprised how quickly the impact would hit the consumer.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2022, 07:45:07 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1031 on: September 10, 2022, 11:28:07 AM »
In one sense, yes too late.

OTOH a very important signal on her first day both to the energy sector and the British people.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: Europe's energy disaster and us
« Reply #1033 on: September 11, 2022, 01:20:55 PM »
quote author=G M
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/europe-facing-energy-disaster-and-its-going-bleed-over-us

Trade war tactics:  In revenge for you shooting a hole in the bottom of your boat, I shoot a hole in the bottom of mine.

The pipeline wasn't built to benefit Europe.  It was built for mutually beneficial trade.  Both win.  Now both lose.  It's Europe's energy supply but it's Russia's cash register.

Russia can sell instead out the back door to China.  Oops that's an 11 time zone difference. What's it cost to pipe or ship it the other way?  More I presume.

Russia knows what it has to do to end sanctions.  Now we see if Europe has a backbone.

Regarding our (US) energy disaster, how many nuclear power plants were in that one trillion dollar "infrastructure" bill?  There was enough money printed to build hundreds of them, maybe thousands.  It was in the 2020 Dem party platform.  Just a headfake?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1034 on: September 11, 2022, 01:33:45 PM »
"Russia can sell instead out the back door to China.  Oops that's an 11 time zone difference. What's it cost to pipe or ship it the other way?"

As I have previously mentioned, the basic idea is that central Asian/Russian gas will go to China and west Russian gas will go to Russia, Belarus/Hungary, etc.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: Europe's energy disaster and us
« Reply #1035 on: September 11, 2022, 09:07:45 PM »
quote author=G M
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/europe-facing-energy-disaster-and-its-going-bleed-over-us

Trade war tactics:  In revenge for you shooting a hole in the bottom of your boat, I shoot a hole in the bottom of mine.

The pipeline wasn't built to benefit Europe.  It was built for mutually beneficial trade.  Both win.  Now both lose.  It's Europe's energy supply but it's Russia's cash register.

Russia can sell instead out the back door to China.  Oops that's an 11 time zone difference. What's it cost to pipe or ship it the other way?  More I presume.

*In a classically Chinese way, China is already selling Europe Russian gas at a serious markup and desperate Europe is pretending to not know it's origin.*

Russia knows what it has to do to end sanctions.  Now we see if Europe has a backbone.

*Backbone? You do not seem to grasp the magnitude of just how fcuked Europe is.*

Regarding our (US) energy disaster, how many nuclear power plants were in that one trillion dollar "infrastructure" bill?  There was enough money printed to build hundreds of them, maybe thousands.  It was in the 2020 Dem party platform.  Just a headfake?

*The Inflation Creation Act was as many before it, about the graft, not about creating energy. Energy just magically happens, and if it doesn't it's because of racism and Trump.*

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: Europe's energy disaster and us
« Reply #1036 on: September 12, 2022, 12:38:22 AM »
"You do not seem to grasp the magnitude of just how fcuked Europe is."

In a suicide, is the person a victim or a killer?

If Europe freezes to death this winter, it might save my life with the lesson learned.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
WT: EV prices coming down
« Reply #1037 on: September 12, 2022, 07:42:43 AM »
Cheaper electric vehicles coming despite high battery costs

BY TOM KRISHER ASSOCIATED PRESS WARREN, MICH. | Even though battery costs are rising, auto companies are rolling out more affordable electric vehicles that should widen their appeal to a larger group of buyers.

The latest came Thursday from General Motors, a Chevrolet Equinox small SUV with a starting price somewhere around $30,000 and a range-per-charge of 250 miles. You can get a range of 300 miles if you pay more.

GM won’t release the exact price of the Equinox EV until closer to the date it goes on sale, about this time next year. But the SUV is at the low end of Edmunds.com’s list of prices for electric vehicles sold in the U.S., where the average cost of an EV is around $65,000. Hitting a price around $30,000 and a range per charge close to 300 miles is key to getting mainstream buyers to switch away from gasoline vehicles.

“You’re kind of at that sweet spot,” said Ivan Drury, director of insights for Edmunds.com. “You’re basically at the price point that everyone is clamoring for.”

Auto industry analysts say that if the Equinox makes efficient use of interior space with plenty of cargo and passenger room, and if it is styled similar to current gaspowered small SUVs, it should be a hit in the most popular segment of the U.S. auto market. About 20% of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. are compact SUVs.

“It’s a perfect vehicle for a lot of different users, whether it’s a small family, maybe an empty nester,” said Jeff Schuster, president of global forecasting for LMC Automotive, a Detroit-area consulting firm. “You’ve got space to haul things, but it’s easy to drive.”

A $30,000 EV that checks all of the boxes is just a little above the price of a comparable small gaspowered SUV. The Toyota RAV4, the top seller in the segment and the top-selling vehicle in the U.S. that isn’t a pickup, starts at just over $28,000. Until the last few years, electric vehicles were either expensive and aimed at affl uent luxury buyers, or cheaper but with limited travel ranges.

For example, a base version of Tesla’s Model 3, the lowest-price model from the top-selling EV brand in the U.S., starts at more than $48,000. A larger Tesla Model X SUV starts at over $120,000.

The only EVs with starting prices under $30,000 (including shipping) now are versions of the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Bolt. Both are smaller than a typical gaspowered compact SUV. The Mini Cooper Electric, Mazda MX30 and Hyundai Kona Electric are in the $30,000s, according to Edmunds.

Kia’s Niro EV, Hyundai’s Ioniq 5, Ford’s F-150 Lightning pickup, the Volkswagen ID. 4, Kia EV6, Toyota b24x, Ford’s Mustang Mach E, Audi’s Q4 e-tron, the Subaru Solterra, Polestar 2, and Tesla Model 3 all have starting prices in the $40,000s.

GM may find it difficult to keep the Equinox price around $30,000, largely because minerals such as lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel that are key components of batteries have been rising fast. There’s a finite number of mines and increasing demand as nearly all automakers introduce new EVs

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14799
    • View Profile
Dems to buy oil at $80 when they would not let Trump buy at $24
« Reply #1038 on: September 15, 2022, 10:11:00 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: Dems to buy oil at $80 when they would not let Trump buy at $24
« Reply #1039 on: September 15, 2022, 11:30:25 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/biden-may-buy-oil-just-212325051.html

the stupidity is just endless.....


Right. they have no regrets, because the party of free sh*t is buying free energy with free money - in their little minds.  They're buying votes, not oil, with your money.

Maybe they won't replace the oil they are stealing.  Because oil is bad.

The hypocrisy is unfathomable.  Even if they admit they are buying votes with taxpayer oil, they are admitting voters care about gas prices at the pump.  Wouldn't those voters choose the other team?

Diesel prices (like for producing and distributing FOOD) and heating oil (for heating homes) have NOT come down.

One degree of warming per century isn't going to fix that.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
FA: Green Hydrogen
« Reply #1040 on: September 15, 2022, 07:28:24 PM »
Can Green Hydrogen Save the Planet?
How to Unleash the Potential of New Energy Technology
By S. Julio Friedmann
September 15, 2022
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/can-green-hydrogen-save-planet

If climate change is the challenge of the century, hydrogen could be the dark-horse solution. So far, it has received little attention compared with other options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as solar or electric vehicles, but that is changing fast. Money and labor are flowing into hydrogen companies, projects, and infrastructure, almost all of them focused on producing hydrogen supplies that emit little to no carbon, thanks to rapid and profound technology and policy advances. Since 2020, developers have announced more than 150 new hydrogen production projects, now exceeding 250 gigawatts of new power production (roughly ten times all renewable power added by China last year and three times the renewable power additions for the whole world). Public policy is helping. At least 35 countries across the globe have developed formal hydrogen strategies—including Canada, Chile, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom—because they see clean hydrogen as both essential for addressing climate change and a huge opportunity for trade and commercial competitiveness.

Until recently, hydrogen was used chiefly to make ammonia and refined fuels. Most of that hydrogen has come from processes that use fossil fuels with no abatement measures, which add 500 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, or about one percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, most of today’s enthusiasm and investment is going toward using hydrogen as a fuel itself or for making new clean fuels. And rather than rely on the old processes that pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, there is an intense focus on making “green” hydrogen, which instead uses clean electricity from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear power to split water into its component parts: hydrogen and oxygen. The approach is simple—it is performed in chemistry classes worldwide—and it requires no combustion and has few moving parts. Investment in these technologies puts green hydrogen center stage for the future production of widely available clean fuels.

Five years ago, this excitement for green hydrogen would have surprised many energy and climate experts, who saw hydrogen as an unlikely player in the future energy mix. In earlier economies, hydrogen couldn’t compete as a fuel. It was simply too expensive, as were solar and wind power, and abundant alternatives were available, including coal, natural gas, and crude oil. Early attempts to make hydrogen a larger part of the economy focused on its use in automobiles, which would have required wholesale changes to fueling infrastructure and factory floors.

The need to address climate change is spurring interest in hydrogen, and new policy measures, along with remarkable technological progress, are making its production a practical reality. Over 137 countries have committed to reaching “net zero” by 2050, meaning they will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible and offset whatever cannot be eliminated by planting trees or taking carbon out of the atmosphere by other means. Major corporations are making similar pledges. Over 320 companies have committed to reaching net zero by 2040. Behind these promises is simple climate math: to stabilize climate change at any level, all sectors everywhere, including electricity, transportation, food, and manufacturing, must effectively reach zero and stay there forever.

That inflexible arithmetic drives production of enormous amounts of green hydrogen to serve those goals. The International Energy Agency has estimated that global green hydrogen production must increase 400-fold by 2050 to make net-zero emissions possible. In addition to ambitious climate goals, advances in technology also enable the shift to green hydrogen. Ten years ago, green hydrogen was wildly more expensive than its dirtier cousins (especially “gray” hydrogen, which is made from natural gas or coal). Most notably, the dramatic decrease in the cost of generating wind and solar power has brought the possibility of scaling up green hydrogen production into the realm of the politically possible.

Green hydrogen’s promise is finally coming into focus. Ramping up its production and diversifying its use will create risks and challenges along the way. To realize the full potential of green hydrogen in the fight against climate change, countries must invest in infrastructure and set the right policies to mitigate the inevitable risks when a new energy market quickly goes commercial.

THE PROMISE

As a clean fuel, hydrogen is quite extraordinary. It burns hot: 2,100 degrees Celsius. That is hot enough to make cement, glass, and steel. It is light—the lightest in the universe—which helps maintain efficiency as a transportation fuel. When run through a fuel cell, it generates electricity on demand. It can combine with other compounds to make fertilizer, liquid fuels, and plastics. Most important for reducing the effects of climate change, these uses emit zero greenhouse gases directly, making hydrogen a destination fuel and feedstock in a net-zero-emissions economy. Burning hydrogen yields water, suitable for drinking or recycling into hydrogen. Plus, once isolated, hydrogen can serve as the main building block to produce other clean fuels, most important, ammonia—another dark horse in the decarbonization race because it emits no carbon when used, has high energy density, and is easily stored and shipped. Hydrogen is also the main building block for fertilizer and other important products, such as explosives and cleaning liquids. Because hydrogen and its derivative products can be stored in tanks and salt caverns indefinitely, it can meet surges in demand during seasonal power variations and stand ready at shipping terminals.

But the process to make pure hydrogen and turn it into a useful product requires energy, and that energy may not always be clean. Natural gas is used to produce gray hydrogen, but the process emits carbon dioxide, exacerbating the climate change problem. When that carbon dioxide byproduct is captured or stored underground, the resulting hydrogen is referred to as “blue” hydrogen, which can be very clean and low in carbon. Biomass, ranging from wood chips to trash, can be chemically changed into biohydrogen, with or without carbon capture. Both these processes can generate very low-carbon hydrogen but require feedstocks (coal, methane, or municipal wastes) that must be mined, stored, shipped, and then converted, with the byproduct carbon dioxide stored underground.

In contrast, the production of green hydrogen requires only three things: fresh water, electrolyzers to split water into its atomic elements, and low-carbon electricity to power the process. It can therefore be produced from low-cost renewable power—namely, solar, wind, and hydro—and other ultra-low carbon electricity, such as nuclear power. Any location with enough fresh water and clean electricity options can become a hydrogen energy superstar. One unlikely example is Chile, which appears to have achieved the lowest generation cost so far because it has superb solar, wind, and hydropower resources—some of the best on earth. Chile has launched ambitious plans for green hydrogen products to generate ten percent of its GDP by 2040. In July, the EU announced a multibillion-dollar investment in green hydrogen production in Namibia, which also has exceptional solar and wind resources. The hydrogen will be used to make ammonia, which will be shipped to Europe and used for energy and food production. It should also produce jobs and new wealth for Namibians.

At least 35 countries across the globe have developed formal hydrogen strategies.

Described as a sort of Swiss Army knife for climate change, hydrogen has potential applications in electricity generation, transportation, and agribusiness. But the most promising application for green hydrogen is heavy industry. Manufacturing of concrete, steel, and chemicals is a huge source of global emissions. These hard-to-decarbonize sectors can’t run on electricity easily or at all. Their range of potential alternative fuels is small, and almost all continue to emit greenhouse gases. For these sectors, hydrogen and its derivative products will be extremely attractive when venting greenhouse gases is no longer accepted or allowed. An example of what the future could look like is the HYBRIT—“hydrogen breakthrough ironmaking technology”—steel plant in Sweden, which has produced the first fossil-free steel using green hydrogen from hydro and nuclear power. HYBRIT is such a rip-roaring success that Sweden’s national steel company has announced that it is replacing all its blast furnaces with similar green-hydrogen-fueled systems.

The eventual price of green hydrogen may be the secret to its success. Most experts agree that between 2030 and 2040, green hydrogen will be produced in many major markets below $2 per kilogram. While this is still roughly 50 to 100 percent more than what gray hydrogen costs today, it is an acceptable cost for many industries and countries. Chile has already declared that it can make hydrogen below $2 per kilogram, and that may soon be true of western Saudi Arabia and northwest Australia, where mammoth projects are under development to produce green hydrogen and ammonia. Projects in the works in Canada, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and the United States also reflect the expectation that demand for clean hydrogen will grow and costs will eventually come way down.

THE DRAWBACKS

Like all other solutions that promise lower greenhouse gas emissions, green hydrogen faces substantial obstacles to quickly scaling up. The biggest is the lack of infrastructure. The United States has only about 1,000 miles of hydrogen pipelines, a relatively meager amount. (It has 100 times more natural gas pipeline miles, which cannot be readily reused for hydrogen.) There is also the problem of power transmission. Chokepoints in the electric grid limit the ability not only to add renewable power but also to bring it to urban and industrial centers, where the electricity-intensive electrolyzers must operate.

Because hydrogen is so light and so small, it’s very hard to ship and store. Hydrogen molecules are small and slippery and are commonly stored at super high pressures or super low temperatures, which adds energy and capital costs. Few ports can ship or receive hydrogen or ammonia, and virtually none have facilities to fuel ships, boats, trucks and dock engines with either fuel, even ports with large industrial demands. This lack of infrastructure to generate, move, and store hydrogen is common to most countries, developed and developing alike. Although some policies have made new infrastructure investments possible, current limits will create chokepoints for this decade and beyond.

Cost is another challenge. In many markets, green hydrogen is still much more expensive than gray or even blue hydrogen—typically four to eight times more expensive. Although some herald green hydrogen as lower cost than hydrogen made from natural gas (blue or gray), such predictions assume a physical scaling up of production that has not yet occurred. They also assume that renewable power generation will run at high capacity, producing electricity more than 75 percent of the time. But that level of uptime can be maintained in only a handful of places on earth—typically regions with abundant hydropower or a combination of abundant solar and wind, such as Chile, Namibia, and northwest Australia, generally far from global demand centers. Moreover, supply chain crunches and critical material shortages are driving up costs for both renewable power equipment and for electrolyzers.

Finally, scaling of hydrogen may present unexpected climate and environmental risks. One example is leakage, which is when hydrogen escapes into the air from production sites, use sites, or pipelines. A lot of leakage would extend the life of some greenhouse gases such as methane or nitrous oxides in the atmosphere, further warming the planet. If countries begin to rapidly scale up their production without properly regulating and monitoring it—which all countries fail to do today—that could lead to substantial hydrogen leakage. Although hydrogen and ammonia can be used safely, massively scaling up their use around the world would add millions of potential leak points without proper oversight and regulation. Similarly, spills and leaks of hydrogen-based fuels (such as ammonia) pose environmental challenges that must be managed, as with gasoline or crude oil spills and leaks.

NEW POWER PLAYERS

The geopolitical implications of a shift from fossil fuels to green hydrogen could prove profound. For one thing, it will create new fuel providers that will compete with current providers. Some petrostates have ample green and blue hydrogen resources, so they will be able to maintain some of their power and leverage, but many new countries are coming online and could disrupt the status quo. Many of these countries are in the global South, including Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Morocco, Namibia, and Uruguay, and clean energy production could bring wealth to them as it has to petrostates in the past. Current consumers of fossil fuels and chemicals, such as India, have rolled out ambitious domestic green hydrogen production programs, first to make fertilizer and then to help decarbonize their heavy industry. Big players in the green hydrogen market will compete for market share with emerging blue hydrogen powerhouses, including Canada, Nigeria, and the United States. And they will compete for major buyers, such as China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and, of course, the EU. This fight to win buyers and capture markets is reflected in the recent blizzard of bilateral agreements—two nations agreeing to dedicated production and purchase of hydrogen and ammonia. Japan and Chile inked such a deal, as did the EU and Namibia, but they are not alone; over 80 bilateral agreements across dozens of nations support production and trade of hydrogen and its derivative products.

As the forces of technology innovation, geopolitics, the desire for economic growth, and diverse natural resources are converging, new policies are being developed that combine climate, innovation, and trade. This merging of policy is clearest in Japan. The country’s banks are financing the production of green hydrogen in Australia and Chile, which will deliver clean fuel for Japan to use in its ports, power plants, and industrial sites. In Japan, government incentives are encouraging clean power production, clean transportation, and clean manufacturing, thereby surmounting the direct consumer cost from clean hydrogen. Taking a holistic policy approach such as Japan’s helps overcome classic “chicken and egg” problems. In short, Japan is building chickens—dedicated hydrogen and clean fuel production around the world and a market to buy the products. This takes the risk out of green hydrogen production through underwriting, industrial policy, and infrastructure development. At the core of these deals are long-term agreements to take hydrogen at guaranteed (fixed) prices. Many other countries are doing the same, including Singapore, South Korea, and some EU members.

The United States has also entered the fray. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed by Congress in November 2021, committed $8 billion to construction and operation for four hydrogen hubs to produce, store, ship, and use hydrogen. Congress has also added billions of dollars for new renewable generation, transmission lines, and port infrastructure. But that was just the opening act. Congress then passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. Most notably, the law created a new class of tax credits, known as Title 45V, which provide tax breaks for clean hydrogen production. This new tax credit is indexed to the carbon intensity of different types of production, with the cleanest hydrogen production receiving $3 per kilogram, dramatically lowering the total cost for green hydrogen. The best solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear projects in the United States would receive this direct-pay incentive, allowing easier access to markets.

Green hydrogen faces substantial obstacles to quickly scaling up.

The European Green Deal, a blueprint of carrots and sticks by the European Commission to meet stricter climate goals, features grants, tariff relief, and subsidies for green hydrogen production, providing an estimated $500 billion in incentives. European interest in green hydrogen has grown after the invasion of Ukraine, with many governments eyeing green hydrogen as a medium-term alternative to Russian gas while remaining true to their climate goals. In many ways, this flood of government investment encourages private investment and resembles the kind of bilateral policies and deals seen in the early days of liquid natural gas production and shipping 20 years ago. Back then, governments made similar long-term commitments to encourage large private-capital investments in liquid natural gas infrastructure.

Given the government support and private-sector investment, it is easy to be optimistic about the trajectory of green hydrogen. Climate advocates can feel good that its falling production costs should make the world’s 2050 climate goals easier to achieve than they were just five years ago. Those who focus on energy security see a way to diversify fuel supplies and reduce the power of individual geopolitical actors. Organized labor sees jobs. Banks see returns. Those concerned with global equality see a chance to shrink the gap between the global North and the global South. Still, care and attention will be required as this new energy market grows. In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Although the journey to green hydrogen will be a bumpy ride, the optimism is warranted, and the hype is justified

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: FA: Green Hydrogen
« Reply #1041 on: September 15, 2022, 08:57:35 PM »
Oh boy! Another green scam!



Can Green Hydrogen Save the Planet?
How to Unleash the Potential of New Energy Technology
By S. Julio Friedmann
September 15, 2022
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/can-green-hydrogen-save-planet

If climate change is the challenge of the century, hydrogen could be the dark-horse solution. So far, it has received little attention compared with other options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as solar or electric vehicles, but that is changing fast. Money and labor are flowing into hydrogen companies, projects, and infrastructure, almost all of them focused on producing hydrogen supplies that emit little to no carbon, thanks to rapid and profound technology and policy advances. Since 2020, developers have announced more than 150 new hydrogen production projects, now exceeding 250 gigawatts of new power production (roughly ten times all renewable power added by China last year and three times the renewable power additions for the whole world). Public policy is helping. At least 35 countries across the globe have developed formal hydrogen strategies—including Canada, Chile, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom—because they see clean hydrogen as both essential for addressing climate change and a huge opportunity for trade and commercial competitiveness.

Until recently, hydrogen was used chiefly to make ammonia and refined fuels. Most of that hydrogen has come from processes that use fossil fuels with no abatement measures, which add 500 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, or about one percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, most of today’s enthusiasm and investment is going toward using hydrogen as a fuel itself or for making new clean fuels. And rather than rely on the old processes that pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, there is an intense focus on making “green” hydrogen, which instead uses clean electricity from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear power to split water into its component parts: hydrogen and oxygen. The approach is simple—it is performed in chemistry classes worldwide—and it requires no combustion and has few moving parts. Investment in these technologies puts green hydrogen center stage for the future production of widely available clean fuels.

Five years ago, this excitement for green hydrogen would have surprised many energy and climate experts, who saw hydrogen as an unlikely player in the future energy mix. In earlier economies, hydrogen couldn’t compete as a fuel. It was simply too expensive, as were solar and wind power, and abundant alternatives were available, including coal, natural gas, and crude oil. Early attempts to make hydrogen a larger part of the economy focused on its use in automobiles, which would have required wholesale changes to fueling infrastructure and factory floors.

The need to address climate change is spurring interest in hydrogen, and new policy measures, along with remarkable technological progress, are making its production a practical reality. Over 137 countries have committed to reaching “net zero” by 2050, meaning they will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible and offset whatever cannot be eliminated by planting trees or taking carbon out of the atmosphere by other means. Major corporations are making similar pledges. Over 320 companies have committed to reaching net zero by 2040. Behind these promises is simple climate math: to stabilize climate change at any level, all sectors everywhere, including electricity, transportation, food, and manufacturing, must effectively reach zero and stay there forever.

That inflexible arithmetic drives production of enormous amounts of green hydrogen to serve those goals. The International Energy Agency has estimated that global green hydrogen production must increase 400-fold by 2050 to make net-zero emissions possible. In addition to ambitious climate goals, advances in technology also enable the shift to green hydrogen. Ten years ago, green hydrogen was wildly more expensive than its dirtier cousins (especially “gray” hydrogen, which is made from natural gas or coal). Most notably, the dramatic decrease in the cost of generating wind and solar power has brought the possibility of scaling up green hydrogen production into the realm of the politically possible.

Green hydrogen’s promise is finally coming into focus. Ramping up its production and diversifying its use will create risks and challenges along the way. To realize the full potential of green hydrogen in the fight against climate change, countries must invest in infrastructure and set the right policies to mitigate the inevitable risks when a new energy market quickly goes commercial.

THE PROMISE

As a clean fuel, hydrogen is quite extraordinary. It burns hot: 2,100 degrees Celsius. That is hot enough to make cement, glass, and steel. It is light—the lightest in the universe—which helps maintain efficiency as a transportation fuel. When run through a fuel cell, it generates electricity on demand. It can combine with other compounds to make fertilizer, liquid fuels, and plastics. Most important for reducing the effects of climate change, these uses emit zero greenhouse gases directly, making hydrogen a destination fuel and feedstock in a net-zero-emissions economy. Burning hydrogen yields water, suitable for drinking or recycling into hydrogen. Plus, once isolated, hydrogen can serve as the main building block to produce other clean fuels, most important, ammonia—another dark horse in the decarbonization race because it emits no carbon when used, has high energy density, and is easily stored and shipped. Hydrogen is also the main building block for fertilizer and other important products, such as explosives and cleaning liquids. Because hydrogen and its derivative products can be stored in tanks and salt caverns indefinitely, it can meet surges in demand during seasonal power variations and stand ready at shipping terminals.

But the process to make pure hydrogen and turn it into a useful product requires energy, and that energy may not always be clean. Natural gas is used to produce gray hydrogen, but the process emits carbon dioxide, exacerbating the climate change problem. When that carbon dioxide byproduct is captured or stored underground, the resulting hydrogen is referred to as “blue” hydrogen, which can be very clean and low in carbon. Biomass, ranging from wood chips to trash, can be chemically changed into biohydrogen, with or without carbon capture. Both these processes can generate very low-carbon hydrogen but require feedstocks (coal, methane, or municipal wastes) that must be mined, stored, shipped, and then converted, with the byproduct carbon dioxide stored underground.

In contrast, the production of green hydrogen requires only three things: fresh water, electrolyzers to split water into its atomic elements, and low-carbon electricity to power the process. It can therefore be produced from low-cost renewable power—namely, solar, wind, and hydro—and other ultra-low carbon electricity, such as nuclear power. Any location with enough fresh water and clean electricity options can become a hydrogen energy superstar. One unlikely example is Chile, which appears to have achieved the lowest generation cost so far because it has superb solar, wind, and hydropower resources—some of the best on earth. Chile has launched ambitious plans for green hydrogen products to generate ten percent of its GDP by 2040. In July, the EU announced a multibillion-dollar investment in green hydrogen production in Namibia, which also has exceptional solar and wind resources. The hydrogen will be used to make ammonia, which will be shipped to Europe and used for energy and food production. It should also produce jobs and new wealth for Namibians.

At least 35 countries across the globe have developed formal hydrogen strategies.

Described as a sort of Swiss Army knife for climate change, hydrogen has potential applications in electricity generation, transportation, and agribusiness. But the most promising application for green hydrogen is heavy industry. Manufacturing of concrete, steel, and chemicals is a huge source of global emissions. These hard-to-decarbonize sectors can’t run on electricity easily or at all. Their range of potential alternative fuels is small, and almost all continue to emit greenhouse gases. For these sectors, hydrogen and its derivative products will be extremely attractive when venting greenhouse gases is no longer accepted or allowed. An example of what the future could look like is the HYBRIT—“hydrogen breakthrough ironmaking technology”—steel plant in Sweden, which has produced the first fossil-free steel using green hydrogen from hydro and nuclear power. HYBRIT is such a rip-roaring success that Sweden’s national steel company has announced that it is replacing all its blast furnaces with similar green-hydrogen-fueled systems.

The eventual price of green hydrogen may be the secret to its success. Most experts agree that between 2030 and 2040, green hydrogen will be produced in many major markets below $2 per kilogram. While this is still roughly 50 to 100 percent more than what gray hydrogen costs today, it is an acceptable cost for many industries and countries. Chile has already declared that it can make hydrogen below $2 per kilogram, and that may soon be true of western Saudi Arabia and northwest Australia, where mammoth projects are under development to produce green hydrogen and ammonia. Projects in the works in Canada, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and the United States also reflect the expectation that demand for clean hydrogen will grow and costs will eventually come way down.

THE DRAWBACKS

Like all other solutions that promise lower greenhouse gas emissions, green hydrogen faces substantial obstacles to quickly scaling up. The biggest is the lack of infrastructure. The United States has only about 1,000 miles of hydrogen pipelines, a relatively meager amount. (It has 100 times more natural gas pipeline miles, which cannot be readily reused for hydrogen.) There is also the problem of power transmission. Chokepoints in the electric grid limit the ability not only to add renewable power but also to bring it to urban and industrial centers, where the electricity-intensive electrolyzers must operate.

Because hydrogen is so light and so small, it’s very hard to ship and store. Hydrogen molecules are small and slippery and are commonly stored at super high pressures or super low temperatures, which adds energy and capital costs. Few ports can ship or receive hydrogen or ammonia, and virtually none have facilities to fuel ships, boats, trucks and dock engines with either fuel, even ports with large industrial demands. This lack of infrastructure to generate, move, and store hydrogen is common to most countries, developed and developing alike. Although some policies have made new infrastructure investments possible, current limits will create chokepoints for this decade and beyond.

Cost is another challenge. In many markets, green hydrogen is still much more expensive than gray or even blue hydrogen—typically four to eight times more expensive. Although some herald green hydrogen as lower cost than hydrogen made from natural gas (blue or gray), such predictions assume a physical scaling up of production that has not yet occurred. They also assume that renewable power generation will run at high capacity, producing electricity more than 75 percent of the time. But that level of uptime can be maintained in only a handful of places on earth—typically regions with abundant hydropower or a combination of abundant solar and wind, such as Chile, Namibia, and northwest Australia, generally far from global demand centers. Moreover, supply chain crunches and critical material shortages are driving up costs for both renewable power equipment and for electrolyzers.

Finally, scaling of hydrogen may present unexpected climate and environmental risks. One example is leakage, which is when hydrogen escapes into the air from production sites, use sites, or pipelines. A lot of leakage would extend the life of some greenhouse gases such as methane or nitrous oxides in the atmosphere, further warming the planet. If countries begin to rapidly scale up their production without properly regulating and monitoring it—which all countries fail to do today—that could lead to substantial hydrogen leakage. Although hydrogen and ammonia can be used safely, massively scaling up their use around the world would add millions of potential leak points without proper oversight and regulation. Similarly, spills and leaks of hydrogen-based fuels (such as ammonia) pose environmental challenges that must be managed, as with gasoline or crude oil spills and leaks.

NEW POWER PLAYERS

The geopolitical implications of a shift from fossil fuels to green hydrogen could prove profound. For one thing, it will create new fuel providers that will compete with current providers. Some petrostates have ample green and blue hydrogen resources, so they will be able to maintain some of their power and leverage, but many new countries are coming online and could disrupt the status quo. Many of these countries are in the global South, including Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Morocco, Namibia, and Uruguay, and clean energy production could bring wealth to them as it has to petrostates in the past. Current consumers of fossil fuels and chemicals, such as India, have rolled out ambitious domestic green hydrogen production programs, first to make fertilizer and then to help decarbonize their heavy industry. Big players in the green hydrogen market will compete for market share with emerging blue hydrogen powerhouses, including Canada, Nigeria, and the United States. And they will compete for major buyers, such as China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and, of course, the EU. This fight to win buyers and capture markets is reflected in the recent blizzard of bilateral agreements—two nations agreeing to dedicated production and purchase of hydrogen and ammonia. Japan and Chile inked such a deal, as did the EU and Namibia, but they are not alone; over 80 bilateral agreements across dozens of nations support production and trade of hydrogen and its derivative products.

As the forces of technology innovation, geopolitics, the desire for economic growth, and diverse natural resources are converging, new policies are being developed that combine climate, innovation, and trade. This merging of policy is clearest in Japan. The country’s banks are financing the production of green hydrogen in Australia and Chile, which will deliver clean fuel for Japan to use in its ports, power plants, and industrial sites. In Japan, government incentives are encouraging clean power production, clean transportation, and clean manufacturing, thereby surmounting the direct consumer cost from clean hydrogen. Taking a holistic policy approach such as Japan’s helps overcome classic “chicken and egg” problems. In short, Japan is building chickens—dedicated hydrogen and clean fuel production around the world and a market to buy the products. This takes the risk out of green hydrogen production through underwriting, industrial policy, and infrastructure development. At the core of these deals are long-term agreements to take hydrogen at guaranteed (fixed) prices. Many other countries are doing the same, including Singapore, South Korea, and some EU members.

The United States has also entered the fray. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed by Congress in November 2021, committed $8 billion to construction and operation for four hydrogen hubs to produce, store, ship, and use hydrogen. Congress has also added billions of dollars for new renewable generation, transmission lines, and port infrastructure. But that was just the opening act. Congress then passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. Most notably, the law created a new class of tax credits, known as Title 45V, which provide tax breaks for clean hydrogen production. This new tax credit is indexed to the carbon intensity of different types of production, with the cleanest hydrogen production receiving $3 per kilogram, dramatically lowering the total cost for green hydrogen. The best solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear projects in the United States would receive this direct-pay incentive, allowing easier access to markets.

Green hydrogen faces substantial obstacles to quickly scaling up.

The European Green Deal, a blueprint of carrots and sticks by the European Commission to meet stricter climate goals, features grants, tariff relief, and subsidies for green hydrogen production, providing an estimated $500 billion in incentives. European interest in green hydrogen has grown after the invasion of Ukraine, with many governments eyeing green hydrogen as a medium-term alternative to Russian gas while remaining true to their climate goals. In many ways, this flood of government investment encourages private investment and resembles the kind of bilateral policies and deals seen in the early days of liquid natural gas production and shipping 20 years ago. Back then, governments made similar long-term commitments to encourage large private-capital investments in liquid natural gas infrastructure.

Given the government support and private-sector investment, it is easy to be optimistic about the trajectory of green hydrogen. Climate advocates can feel good that its falling production costs should make the world’s 2050 climate goals easier to achieve than they were just five years ago. Those who focus on energy security see a way to diversify fuel supplies and reduce the power of individual geopolitical actors. Organized labor sees jobs. Banks see returns. Those concerned with global equality see a chance to shrink the gap between the global North and the global South. Still, care and attention will be required as this new energy market grows. In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Although the journey to green hydrogen will be a bumpy ride, the optimism is warranted, and the hype is justified

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1042 on: September 16, 2022, 04:15:17 AM »
Agree.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
No one is coming to save europe
« Reply #1043 on: September 16, 2022, 10:45:51 AM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/us-shale-warns-energy-stricken-europe-no-bailout-coming

Putin will use General Winter to conquer Europe without a shot fired.






G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile