If hydrogen is the answer, you're asking the wrong question

[markslawson + 1,042]

The "renewable energy can do no wrong" brigade will no doubt be horrified to learn that I have a couple more posts to come from my book DARK AGES The looming destruction of the Australian power grid  This one is on the general uselessness of hydrogen.

If I had to hand out awards for the worst idea among all the proposals for generating and storing green energy, then the mass use of hydrogen as a sort of alternative to Liquid Natural Gas would be a major contender for the top prize. Unlike power from coal and gas renewable energy can be generated anywhere, and almost any country that can be named has at some point talked about becoming the “Saudi Arabia of wind” as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson put it. In other words, why would say, Japan, import horrifically expensive power from elsewhere using Hydrogen when they can make horrifically expensive power in their own territory, including coastal waters? 

This point was forcefully made by Professor of Engineering at the Australian National University, Andrew Blakers, in an article in the Australian edition of The Conversation, an online site for academic articles, in April 2022. An enthusiastic and tireless advocate for renewable energy Professor Blakers points out that Japan has more than enough solar and wind energy to be self-sufficient in energy – assuming all that energy can be harnessed. Whether or not you agree with Professor Blakers that Japan can realistically meet all of its energy needs from local renewable energy the country can certainly generate hydrogen locally.

Some background: hydrogen is currently used as a feedstock for many industrial processes such as treating metals, producing fertilizer, and processing foods. Petroleum refineries use hydrogen to lower the sulphur content of fuels. Almost all of that commercial hydrogen comes from the traditional method which uses steam and natural gas, as that is by far the cheapest way of extracting hydrogen, and the vast bulk of this industrial hydrogen is used at about the same place it is made. Proponents of renewable energy, however, now want to build hectares upon hectares of wind farms and solar energy generators to make hydrogen by electrolysis – that is, by passing an electric current through water. The idea is to store this hydrogen in some way, preferably in liquid form like LNG, then ship it off to where it is needed as a replacement for fossil fuels in generating electricity, to power cars, and perhaps even ships and planes.

However, the process of making, condensing and shipping hydrogen is known to be technical challenging and wasteful, and Hydrogen powered devices are also less efficient than the fossil fuel versions. Professor Blakers cites an estimate that converting energy to hydrogen, shipping it to where it is needed and then converting back into energy could consume 70 per cent of the energy generated. Michael Liebreich, a senior contributor to BloombergNEF (New Energy Finance) wrote in a report in 2020 that as an energy storage medium, hydrogen has only a 50 per cent round-trip efficiency – far worse than batteries. He estimated that hydrogen powered fuel cells, turbines and engines are only 60 per cent efficient – far worse than electric motors – and far more complex. As a source of heat hydrogen costs four times as much as natural gas. As a way of transporting energy, hydrogen pipelines cost three times as much as power lines, and the cost of sending the gas by ship of trucks is even worse, he says. (Liebreich, who takes a far more positive view of Hydrogen's role than myself, has since issued The Unbearable Lightness of Hydrogen, in which he laments the continued hype of this area.)

Activists who talk so glibly about using hydrogen to store energy are no doubt thinking of Liquid Natural Gas, which is the subject of a thriving international trade using purpose-built container vessels. However, the technical problems of shipping LNG were worked out, the facilities were built, and customers were found to buy the output before the general public was fully aware of the general usefulness of being able to trade gas across oceans. Unlike LNG, however, hydrogen presents considerable difficulties in its storage and use. It is a much smaller molecule than methane, so seals and pipes that would comfortably prevent methane leakage do not keep hydrogen in. The liquification temperature for hydrogen is much lower than that of methane, specifically minus 253 degrees centigrade or just 14 degrees above what physicists call absolute zero – you can’t get any colder – and so requires considerably more energy to achieve and maintain. The alternative is to store the gas under very high pressures. This leads to the problem of safety. Without getting into technical details, hydrogen has different burning and explosive properties to that of LNG and, as noted, a greater tendency to leak. It is a far more dangerous substance.

Faced with these inconvenient facts, activists offer counter arguments that range from the feeble to the ridiculous. They claim that green power will be so cheap the wastage from using hydrogen to store the power will not matter. Really? If the power is so cheap why wouldn’t each country create its own power and never mind any export market? If that energy still has to be shifted around internally, why not reduce the losses by using a transmission line? If power has to be stored then massed batteries may be almost as ridiculous a solution, but at least it would be cheaper, more efficient and (probably) safer than a hydrogen storage unit.

Another argument is that hydrogen can be stored cheaply in salt domes. These geological features are a key part of the formation oil deposits. The salt can be extracted comparatively easily to form large, underground pockets for gas storage, or so it is hoped. There are development projects in the Europe and in the US looking at salt domes but the last word in this area such be left to another BloombergNEF report (Hydrogen Economy Outlook, 2020). “Storing hydrogen in large quantities will be one of the most significant challenges for a future hydrogen economy. Low cost, large-scale options like salt caverns are geographically limited, and the cost of using alternative liquid storage technologies is often greater than the cost of producing hydrogen in the first place.”

Activists also point to hydrogen’s possible use in town gas supplies, which occurred in the 1960s before the advent of bulk trade in LNG. Gas appliances can be used with a certain portion of hydrogen in their fuel, perhaps up to 30 per cent. Anything more than that and both the appliances and gas mains will have to be rebuilt. There are already niche uses where the advantages of hydrogen outweigh the disadvantages such as in rocket fuel and fuel cells for submarines and so on. Otherwise, it is simply too difficult and costly to use without further technological breakthroughs.

Although there have been reports of major deals involving hydrogen, it is clear that hype has outrun reality. In fact, to judge by the large amount of nonsense spoken and written about its use, the main value of hydrogen is not commercial at all. The gas’s main value is to provide comfort to activists. It is one of the many fantasy stories they tell themselves in the expectation of some day reaching green nirvana, somewhere over the rainbow. It is about as much use as any other fantasy story.
 

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

The "renewable energy can do no wrong" brigade will no doubt be horrified to learn that I have a couple more posts to come from my book DARK AGES The looming destruction of the Australian power grid  This one is on the general uselessness of hydrogen.

If I had to hand out awards for the worst idea among all the proposals for generating and storing green energy, then the mass use of hydrogen as a sort of alternative to Liquid Natural Gas would be a major contender for the top prize. Unlike power from coal and gas renewable energy can be generated anywhere, and almost any country that can be named has at some point talked about becoming the “Saudi Arabia of wind” as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson put it. In other words, why would say, Japan, import horrifically expensive power from elsewhere using Hydrogen when they can make horrifically expensive power in their own territory, including coastal waters? 

This point was forcefully made by Professor of Engineering at the Australian National University, Andrew Blakers, in an article in the Australian edition of The Conversation, an online site for academic articles, in April 2022. An enthusiastic and tireless advocate for renewable energy Professor Blakers points out that Japan has more than enough solar and wind energy to be self-sufficient in energy – assuming all that energy can be harnessed. Whether or not you agree with Professor Blakers that Japan can realistically meet all of its energy needs from local renewable energy the country can certainly generate hydrogen locally.

Some background: hydrogen is currently used as a feedstock for many industrial processes such as treating metals, producing fertilizer, and processing foods. Petroleum refineries use hydrogen to lower the sulphur content of fuels. Almost all of that commercial hydrogen comes from the traditional method which uses steam and natural gas, as that is by far the cheapest way of extracting hydrogen, and the vast bulk of this industrial hydrogen is used at about the same place it is made. Proponents of renewable energy, however, now want to build hectares upon hectares of wind farms and solar energy generators to make hydrogen by electrolysis – that is, by passing an electric current through water. The idea is to store this hydrogen in some way, preferably in liquid form like LNG, then ship it off to where it is needed as a replacement for fossil fuels in generating electricity, to power cars, and perhaps even ships and planes.

However, the process of making, condensing and shipping hydrogen is known to be technical challenging and wasteful, and Hydrogen powered devices are also less efficient than the fossil fuel versions. Professor Blakers cites an estimate that converting energy to hydrogen, shipping it to where it is needed and then converting back into energy could consume 70 per cent of the energy generated. Michael Liebreich, a senior contributor to BloombergNEF (New Energy Finance) wrote in a report in 2020 that as an energy storage medium, hydrogen has only a 50 per cent round-trip efficiency – far worse than batteries. He estimated that hydrogen powered fuel cells, turbines and engines are only 60 per cent efficient – far worse than electric motors – and far more complex. As a source of heat hydrogen costs four times as much as natural gas. As a way of transporting energy, hydrogen pipelines cost three times as much as power lines, and the cost of sending the gas by ship of trucks is even worse, he says. (Liebreich, who takes a far more positive view of Hydrogen's role than myself, has since issued The Unbearable Lightness of Hydrogen, in which he laments the continued hype of this area.)

Activists who talk so glibly about using hydrogen to store energy are no doubt thinking of Liquid Natural Gas, which is the subject of a thriving international trade using purpose-built container vessels. However, the technical problems of shipping LNG were worked out, the facilities were built, and customers were found to buy the output before the general public was fully aware of the general usefulness of being able to trade gas across oceans. Unlike LNG, however, hydrogen presents considerable difficulties in its storage and use. It is a much smaller molecule than methane, so seals and pipes that would comfortably prevent methane leakage do not keep hydrogen in. The liquification temperature for hydrogen is much lower than that of methane, specifically minus 253 degrees centigrade or just 14 degrees above what physicists call absolute zero – you can’t get any colder – and so requires considerably more energy to achieve and maintain. The alternative is to store the gas under very high pressures. This leads to the problem of safety. Without getting into technical details, hydrogen has different burning and explosive properties to that of LNG and, as noted, a greater tendency to leak. It is a far more dangerous substance.

Faced with these inconvenient facts, activists offer counter arguments that range from the feeble to the ridiculous. They claim that green power will be so cheap the wastage from using hydrogen to store the power will not matter. Really? If the power is so cheap why wouldn’t each country create its own power and never mind any export market? If that energy still has to be shifted around internally, why not reduce the losses by using a transmission line? If power has to be stored then massed batteries may be almost as ridiculous a solution, but at least it would be cheaper, more efficient and (probably) safer than a hydrogen storage unit.

Another argument is that hydrogen can be stored cheaply in salt domes. These geological features are a key part of the formation oil deposits. The salt can be extracted comparatively easily to form large, underground pockets for gas storage, or so it is hoped. There are development projects in the Europe and in the US looking at salt domes but the last word in this area such be left to another BloombergNEF report (Hydrogen Economy Outlook, 2020). “Storing hydrogen in large quantities will be one of the most significant challenges for a future hydrogen economy. Low cost, large-scale options like salt caverns are geographically limited, and the cost of using alternative liquid storage technologies is often greater than the cost of producing hydrogen in the first place.”

Activists also point to hydrogen’s possible use in town gas supplies, which occurred in the 1960s before the advent of bulk trade in LNG. Gas appliances can be used with a certain portion of hydrogen in their fuel, perhaps up to 30 per cent. Anything more than that and both the appliances and gas mains will have to be rebuilt. There are already niche uses where the advantages of hydrogen outweigh the disadvantages such as in rocket fuel and fuel cells for submarines and so on. Otherwise, it is simply too difficult and costly to use without further technological breakthroughs.

Although there have been reports of major deals involving hydrogen, it is clear that hype has outrun reality. In fact, to judge by the large amount of nonsense spoken and written about its use, the main value of hydrogen is not commercial at all. The gas’s main value is to provide comfort to activists. It is one of the many fantasy stories they tell themselves in the expectation of some day reaching green nirvana, somewhere over the rainbow. It is about as much use as any other fantasy story.
 

Mark weve been over this several times.

You base all of your assumptions on outdated tech. There are breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel cells and electrolysers all the time, the ones below are since 2020 when your main protagonist shared his views, might be worth asking him now.

Below is a hydrogen fuel cell giving fuel efficiency of 60% compared to 30-35% for an ICE vehicle. 

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-energy-breakthrough-tech-fuel-cell.html

https://techxplore.com/news/2022-07-world-durable-hydrogen-fuel-cell.html#:~:text=Researchers at The Hong Kong University of Science,in the pursuit of a carbon neutral world.

https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2022/breakthrough-opens-door-to-low-cost-green-hydrogen.php

https://www.tno.nl/en/newsroom/2022/10/breakthrough-electrolyser-development/

Hydrogen production at $1.50/KG

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-electrolyser-breakthrough-promises-worlds-cheapest-green-hydrogen/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/4-technologies-accelerating-green-hydrogen-revolution/

One of the newest and best 

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2023/feb/hydrogen-seawater

And the car that can travel 2000KM on one full fuel cell which would cost approx $40 (US dollars) based on $2/KG

https://hydrogen-central.com/new-hydrogen-car-travels-2000-kilometers-single-tank/

If it costs $40 to travel 2000KM and you can refill the same time it takes to refill an ICE but its way cheaper to do so, I reckon 1/3 of the cost for US citizens, so why wouldnt you. Yes infrastructure issues. That can be sorted in the same way as EV's are being done now.

Then hydrogen mixed with NG for heating/cooking

https://www.energynetworks.org/newsroom/britains-gas-grid-ready-to-deliver-hydrogen-across-the-country-from-2023-energy-networks-announce

Oil majors converting refineries into hydrogen plants at a cost of €2b dont generally throw money away like this on white elephant projects.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-launches-plans-for-low-carbon-green-hydrogen-cluster-in-spains-valencia-region.html

I have no skin in the game, but I like to be up to date with the latest tech before I make judgements or be dismissive. I'm sure in the early 20th century people were saying that horses would never be replaced by automobiles.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

Ironically just came across this posted on oil price today!!!

Tata Steel Launches Hydrogen Trial For Steel Production

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tata-Steel-Launches-Hydrogen-Trial-For-Steel-Production.html

[markslawson + 1,042]

14 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

You base all of your assumptions on outdated tech. There are breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel cells and electrolysers all the time, the ones below are since 2020 when your main protagonist shared his views, might be worth asking him now.

Below is a hydrogen fuel cell giving fuel efficiency of 60% compared to 30-35% for an ICE vehicle. 

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-energy-breakthrough-tech-fuel-cell.html

Rob - come now, we have been over this a few times and you've been defeated every time. Go back and look at your material. For starters the date on the first item you listed is about three weeks ago and its experimental/developmental. When it gets to commercial application at sufficient size to make a difference THEN its time to call me out. Otherwise forget it. There have been too many stories about tech breakthroughs promising a green revolution then coming to nothing for any of your hopeful references to matter. That said, its quite possible some piece of tech might shift some of the conclusions noted above, but by no means all. There are still all the problems of storing and transporting. If you want a realistic but optimistic take on the future of H2, then look up the writing of the Bloomberg NEF guy I quote in the post. He says there is still a place for H2 but he talks about local networks of production and consumption. I don't agree with him, but he knows what he's talking about. H2 is clearly the most hyped of all the renewable energy topics. When I give my book launch talk I'll mention your response (I won't mention names), as an example of someone who cannot let go of the fantasy. I won't bother to reply again. Take care.    

[markslawson + 1,042]

14 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Ironically just came across this posted on oil price today!!!

Tata Steel Launches Hydrogen Trial For Steel Production

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tata-Steel-Launches-Hydrogen-Trial-For-Steel-Production.html

Oh yes, just saw this - I'm well aware of the green steel stuff. Again, it simply changes nothing. One estimate I saw of these processes in one of the International Energy Agency reports was that this process might cost about $US70 more per tonne. So what happens if Western produces adopt this and Chinese producers don't bother (a likely scenario)? Steel production would shift to China. No gain. Maybe I'll say more about this stuff when I talk about net zero, which will be soon. Leave it with you. 

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

Rob - come now, we have been over this a few times and you've been defeated every time. Go back and look at your material. For starters the date on the first item you listed is about three weeks ago and its experimental/developmental. When it gets to commercial application at sufficient size to make a difference THEN its time to call me out. Otherwise forget it. There have been too many stories about tech breakthroughs promising a green revolution then coming to nothing for any of your hopeful references to matter. That said, its quite possible some piece of tech might shift some of the conclusions noted above, but by no means all. There are still all the problems of storing and transporting. If you want a realistic but optimistic take on the future of H2, then look up the writing of the Bloomberg NEF guy I quote in the post. He says there is still a place for H2 but he talks about local networks of production and consumption. I don't agree with him, but he knows what he's talking about. H2 is clearly the most hyped of all the renewable energy topics. When I give my book launch talk I'll mention your response (I won't mention names), as an example of someone who cannot let go of the fantasy. I won't bother to reply again. Take care.    

Defeated? dont make me laugh!

Again you cite NOTHING to back up your view and yet I posted 10 links of various uses and breakthroughs since 2020 and you pick on 1 that in YOUR opinion wont make any difference to your view point.

Mark your mind is closed so frankly I give up on you and wont bother with your threads anymore as you just cant admit youre behind the times and flat wrong.

You seem to live in some fantasy world where you hear 1 thing and believe it to the end of time even when everyone around you is telling you its wrong and the world has moved on years ago.

You would no doubt tell the bloke who invented the wheel that it wont catch on as its not in mass production and making wheels to be round is too difficult.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

Maybe I'll say more about this stuff when I talk about net zero, which will be soon

Oh joy I cant wait for that!

Should give me something else to laugh at though I supopose!

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

Oh yes, just saw this - I'm well aware of the green steel stuff. Again, it simply changes nothing. One estimate I saw of these processes in one of the International Energy Agency reports was that this process might cost about $US70 more per tonne. So what happens if Western produces adopt this and Chinese producers don't bother (a likely scenario)? Steel production would shift to China. No gain. Maybe I'll say more about this stuff when I talk about net zero, which will be soon. Leave it with you. 

"It simply changes nothing" Haha youre a funny guy!

Yes there is a H2 steel producer already in Sweden but they havent got the resource nor the huge demand that TATA have and you cite an IEA "estimate" so they dont actually know do they! Even if the IEA is right (which doesnt happen very often) its a fledgling industry so costs will reduce, give it time and it will become cheaper.

TATA are a massive Indian steel supplier in the industry so wont make bad long term economic decisions, and it probably will make them more competitive with China in the future.

[Ron Wagner + 643]

On 4/25/2023 at 5:15 AM, Rob Plant said:

Mark weve been over this several times.

You base all of your assumptions on outdated tech. There are breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel cells and electrolysers all the time, the ones below are since 2020 when your main protagonist shared his views, might be worth asking him now.

Below is a hydrogen fuel cell giving fuel efficiency of 60% compared to 30-35% for an ICE vehicle. 

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-energy-breakthrough-tech-fuel-cell.html

https://techxplore.com/news/2022-07-world-durable-hydrogen-fuel-cell.html#:~:text=Researchers at The Hong Kong University of Science,in the pursuit of a carbon neutral world.

https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2022/breakthrough-opens-door-to-low-cost-green-hydrogen.php

https://www.tno.nl/en/newsroom/2022/10/breakthrough-electrolyser-development/

Hydrogen production at $1.50/KG

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-electrolyser-breakthrough-promises-worlds-cheapest-green-hydrogen/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/4-technologies-accelerating-green-hydrogen-revolution/

One of the newest and best 

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2023/feb/hydrogen-seawater

And the car that can travel 2000KM on one full fuel cell which would cost approx $40 (US dollars) based on $2/KG

https://hydrogen-central.com/new-hydrogen-car-travels-2000-kilometers-single-tank/

If it costs $40 to travel 2000KM and you can refill the same time it takes to refill an ICE but its way cheaper to do so, I reckon 1/3 of the cost for US citizens, so why wouldnt you. Yes infrastructure issues. That can be sorted in the same way as EV's are being done now.

Then hydrogen mixed with NG for heating/cooking

https://www.energynetworks.org/newsroom/britains-gas-grid-ready-to-deliver-hydrogen-across-the-country-from-2023-energy-networks-announce

Oil majors converting refineries into hydrogen plants at a cost of €2b dont generally throw money away like this on white elephant projects.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-launches-plans-for-low-carbon-green-hydrogen-cluster-in-spains-valencia-region.html

I have no skin in the game, but I like to be up to date with the latest tech before I make judgements or be dismissive. I'm sure in the early 20th century people were saying that horses would never be replaced by automobiles.

The only way to find out is for governments or large corporations to spend the money to try to scale their ideas into reality. That seems very far into the future. Natural gas as LNG or CNG can do the job right now and is doing it. It can work on any ICE engine or on fuel cells. 

[Boat + 1,315]

It seems the Saudi and Russia by being so unpredictable cost the world trillions in inflation. When you think of words like intermittent were trained to say renewable has that problem. I contend wars and rumors of wars along with blatant production manipulation has caused far more intermittent problems than renewables possible can. In a region there can be weeks with problems but with wars like in Iraq there was price gouging shortages for years. Having distributed energy and getting off the world market manipulation should be the goal. 

[specinho + 440]

How does hydrogen energy work please? 🥺

Electrolysis to produce gas hydrogen. Ionized molecule hydrogen to produce energy and water? 😯

Science has become a religion. Believers are taught to "Just Believe", right? '-'

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

On 4/28/2023 at 3:23 AM, Ron Wagner said:

The only way to find out is for governments or large corporations to spend the money to try to scale their ideas into reality. That seems very far into the future. Natural gas as LNG or CNG can do the job right now and is doing it. It can work on any ICE engine or on fuel cells. 

Ron a €2b hydrogen project by BP is one of the links I shared! This is an oil major if I'm not mistaken. This project is all steam ahead (pun intended)

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-launches-plans-for-low-carbon-green-hydrogen-cluster-in-spains-valencia-region.html

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

Brookfield Eyes $15 Billion Investment In Green Steel

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Brookfield-Eyes-15-Billion-Investment-In-Green-Steel.html

@Ron Wagner

You said "The only way to find out is for governments or large corporations to spend the money to try to scale their ideas into reality. That seems very far into the future. Natural gas as LNG or CNG can do the job right now and is doing it. It can work on any ICE engine or on fuel cells. "

Is $15b enough for you???

[Ron Wagner + 643]

Using natural gas makes the most sense. Add whatever hydrogen is available from excess renewables that are available. Natural gas is clean, and CO2 is beneficial to plant growth. It is not a pollutant. 

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

Saudi Arabia Will Have Hydrogen Buses Running In 2024

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Saudi-Arabia-Will-Have-Hydrogen-Buses-Running-In-2024.html

Yes the hydrogen investments keep on coming in their billions of $.

As usual Mark is waaaaay off the mark (pun intended)

Has anyone bought his book yet? 🤣

[RichieRich$ + 65]

Good read Mark:

The green folks don't seem to understand that the world's economy runs on fossil fuels, they can talk about alternatives all they want, but most developed countries do not have the necessary infrastructure to support a complete go green as some desire.

It will be decades before most countries can even pay for yet put that infrastructure in place. I have yet to see any alternative to fire-up grain combines that cut and process hundreds of thousands of acres that can run on strictly green power.

Lastly, the thousands of products that are used in everyday life and just about every industry rely on petrochemicals to be used.

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

Hydrogen along with renewables are the new go to energy suppies for many oil and gas majors going forward, they are adapting as are their sub tier suppliers as investment is easier to come by and new projects easier to get off the ground from governments.

Thats a fact!

That does not mean that FF and in particular petrochemicals are going away for centuries, if ever.

The world's energy consumption is rocketing so we need all types IMO, its not a "green agenda" its a basic requirement to get people out of poverty.

Out of 109,092 TWh energy consumption in 2021, 83,912 TWh was from FF.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

The "just stop oil" brigade in the UK are complete morons who have been brain washed without doing their due diligence of what oil + gas actually gives us all. The founder of this organisation is worth several hundreds of millions of £ all off the back of his green agenda, surprise surprise.

https://juststopoil.org/

Currently without oil the world would starve.

The energy transition is going to be a very very long process but FF will never go away until mankind finds a cheaper cleaner alternative.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

China Set To Become The World’s Largest Green Hydrogen Importer By 2030

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/China-Set-To-Become-The-Worlds-Largest-Green-Hydrogen-Importer-By-2030.html

[Meredith Poor + 883]

Switching to hydrogen fuel could prolong the methane problem

https://environment.princeton.edu/news/switching-to-hydrogen-fuel-could-prolong-the-methane-problem/

Hydrogen molecules would scavenge hydroxyl radicals in the lower atmosphere. These radicals break up methane and nitrogen oxides, so if there are less of them, these greenhouse gases would last longer and result in more global warming. Hydrogen might accidentally make 'global warming' worse.

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

Oops Sorry Mark 

Yet another scientific breakthrough!

Scientists Leap Forward In Sustainable Hydrogen Production

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Scientists-Leap-Forward-In-Sustainable-Hydrogen-Production.html

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

On 5/31/2023 at 11:58 AM, RichieRich$ said:

I have yet to see any alternative to fire-up grain combines that cut and process hundreds of thousands of acres that can run on strictly green power.

 

[RichieRich$ + 65]

Jay,

Not a combine! Not even in the same class!

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

16 hours ago, RichieRich$ said:

Jay,

Not a combine! Not even in the same class!

Actually they are in the exact same class.

The energy density of ammonia is 22.5 MJ/kg at HHV, which is about half of that for typical hydrocarbon fuels

But fuel cells are twice as efficient as a diesel engine. PEM fuel cells average about 40 to 60% efficiency. Combustion engines, by contrast, only average 20% to 35% efficiency.

So a diesel combine and an ammonia combine would have the same size fuel tank.

[RichieRich$ + 65]

Jay,

As a GREENIE you should realize that everything about that piece of equipment is only available because of fossil fuels! So what is the fossil fuel footprint for this?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, RichieRich$ said:

Jay,

As a GREENIE you should realize that everything about that piece of equipment is only available because of fossil fuels! So what is the fossil fuel footprint for this?

The fuel is made from green hydrogen and as renewables continue to replace fossil fuels the footprint will just keep shrinking.