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

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

By the time a tank full of gasoline is pumped into a car, how much of the energy pumped out of the ground as oil has been consumed separating out the contaminants, piping or trucking the oil to a storage tank, piping it to a refinery, refining it, piping or trucking the refined product to a service station, and so forth?

Yes, I was re-posting what Mark Lawson posted

I'm not saying I agree with him, don't think thats ever happened lol

[markslawson + 1,057]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

What a stupid comment, do you really think the price and efficiencies are the same for renewables in every country? Every country has different resources and weather patterns.

Rob: of course the price and efficiencies are different. The problem is, as I say in the original post, that the inefficiencies of using Hydrogen completely swamp any problems there might be in generating renewable energy closer to home. Say if you wanted to consume renewable power in Europe then generate it in North Africa - plenty of desert - and use a transmission line. That would be vastly more efficient than trying to shift energy around than H2. The use of ammonia just makes the inefficiencies worse - at the very least barely improves on H2. There simply is no business case for the use of either H2 or NH3, end of story.      

Edited January 26 by markslawson
correcting error..

[markslawson + 1,057]

6 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

By the time a tank full of gasoline is pumped into a car, how much of the energy pumped out of the ground as oil has been consumed separating out the contaminants, piping or trucking the oil to a storage tank, piping it to a refinery, refining it, piping or trucking the refined product to a service station, and so forth?

Meredith - for heaven sake, go back, look at your post sit down and think. The biggest loss of energy would be in refining. Crude oil is refined into a range of products - petrol, diesel, kerosene and so on. But there has never been any real question that the amount of energy put in is vastly less than the energy tapped. Remember that crude oil is a source of energy its not a medium or a means of storing it, so you don't have the vast inefficiencies you have with making H2 and then converting it back to water. There would certainly be inefficiencies with the steps you mentioned but petrol/gas is a very convenient form of energy. It can be pumped around and transported in large containers with comparatively few difficulties - diesel is safer than petrol, incidentally. You don't want to take take tankers of petrol or LNG lightly, or be careless with them, but the technology of moving such stuff around was sorted out decades ago and the energy losses remain minimal. Hope that helps.     

[Meredith Poor + 895]

On 1/26/2024 at 6:15 PM, markslawson said:

Meredith - for heaven sake, go back, look at your post sit down and think. The biggest loss of energy would be in refining. Crude oil is refined into a range of products - petrol, diesel, kerosene and so on. But there has never been any real question that the amount of energy put in is vastly less than the energy tapped. Remember that crude oil is a source of energy its not a medium or a means of storing it, so you don't have the vast inefficiencies you have with making H2 and then converting it back to water. There would certainly be inefficiencies with the steps you mentioned but petrol/gas is a very convenient form of energy. It can be pumped around and transported in large containers with comparatively few difficulties - diesel is safer than petrol, incidentally. You don't want to take take tankers of petrol or LNG lightly, or be careless with them, but the technology of moving such stuff around was sorted out decades ago and the energy losses remain minimal. Hope that helps.     

https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/potential-geologic-hydrogen-next-generation-energy

Hydrogen also occurs in natural deposits. Relevant questions are 'How much exists and is recoverable?' and 'What does it take to extract it and use the energy?'. So hydrogen can, in some circumstances, be 'a source of energy'.

[markslawson + 1,057]

6 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Hydrogen also occurs in natural deposits. Relevant questions are 'How much exists and is recoverable?' and 'What does it take to extract it and use the energy?'. So hydrogen can, in some circumstances, be 'a source of energy'.

Oh sure but those are comparatively small amounts - certainly not in amounts that would begin to compete with natural gas. Even if large deposits are recovered its probably better to use the gas from those deposits in long-standing industrial uses for H2. Hydrogen is widely used in industrial processes, with almost all of it consumed on the same spot it is manufactured by using Methane, due to the difficulty of transporting it in quantity. There has been talk of using hydrolysis of water to produce H2 rather than use methane but its much more expensive..   

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 1/26/2024 at 11:00 PM, markslawson said:

Rob: of course the price and efficiencies are different. The problem is, as I say in the original post, that the inefficiencies of using Hydrogen completely swamp any problems there might be in generating renewable energy closer to home. Say if you wanted to consume renewable power in Europe then generate it in North Africa - plenty of desert - and use a transmission line. That would be vastly more efficient than trying to shift energy around than H2. The use of ammonia just makes the inefficiencies worse - at the very least barely improves on H2. There simply is no business case for the use of either H2 or NH3, end of story.      

Mark you cant seriously make comments like this and actually believe what youre writing surely?

Since the previous publication,2 more than 350 new proposals have been announced. Of the total, 795 aim to be fully or partially commissioned through 2030 and represent total investments of USD 320 billion of direct investments into hydrogen value chains through 2030 (up from USD 240 billion)

Are all these global OEM's, Utilities. big oil companies wrong and youre right??? Hmmm....

 

[markslawson + 1,057]

14 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Since the previous publication,2 more than 350 new proposals have been announced. Of the total, 795 aim to be fully or partially commissioned through 2030 and represent total investments of USD 320 billion of direct investments into hydrogen value chains through 2030 (up from USD 240 billion)

Rob - go back and look at your post, sit down and think. You don't actually say what the new proposals are for - new H2 projects? - but never mind. Sure, there are plenty of proposals. There have been whole conferences on H2 investment. Its a go-ahead area of investment. Put a Hydrogen project in your portfolio and your company, or investment fund, looks more attractive. The real question is how many will go ahead given the total lack of a business case for the use of H2 as a store of energy. However, government incentives may make some projects almost viable. There may also be a limited case for using hydrolysis in industrial H2 applications (H2 is used widely in industrial projects but with the the gas made from Methane). No case for its use as a store of energy. Those projects will be dropped. Hope that helps.   

[frankfurter + 562]

Thanks to geologists, we know the Earth has had many Ice Ages and Hot Ages in its 4 billion year history; and NONE are attributed to human activities, except for the warming trend we have now. So, over the span of 4bn years, is carbon the reason for warming, or could the reason be another factor/s such as the Precession? We simply do not know.

Every minute of every day, we humans rape, pollute, destroy our only home. Would I like to have this stopped? Yes. The issue is how.

The atmosphere is comprised mainly of 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, 1% Argon, and the remainder 1% is a mixture of many compounds. CO2 is about 325 parts per million. CO2 is thus 0.0325%. wow, so much, shocking!  But note a singular problem: Nitrogen. N is highly reactive, and destroys Ozone. Without the Ozone layer, all life on Earth dies.

So, it seems to me we should not increase the concentration of N, not even one iota. Ergo, talk of using Ammonia (NH3) as a fuel is complete insanity to me.

Given the ice ages, etc, I have trouble accepting the premise a level of 0.0325% CO2 is the main reason we have global warming. Fact; N gas and its compounds (NO, etc) are also 'greenhouse' gases.

But if CO2 is a reason, and we wish to be rid of it, then logically we need a fuel with zero carbon. The only safe fuel prospect we have currently is Hydrogen. 

But H itself will not remove the C from air. To remove C, vehicles must be built with scrubber devices to remove C from the exhaust. And burning H only, requires removing O from the atmosphere, which is then combined with the elements in air to form new compounds, such as NO, H20, etc. hmm, removal of O from air doesn't sound like such a great idea either.

so, we face a dilemma. 
 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, markslawson said:

Rob - go back and look at your post, sit down and think. You don't actually say what the new proposals are for - new H2 projects? - but never mind. Sure, there are plenty of proposals. There have been whole conferences on H2 investment. Its a go-ahead area of investment. Put a Hydrogen project in your portfolio and your company, or investment fund, looks more attractive. The real question is how many will go ahead given the total lack of a business case for the use of H2 as a store of energy. However, government incentives may make some projects almost viable. There may also be a limited case for using hydrolysis in industrial H2 applications (H2 is used widely in industrial projects but with the the gas made from Methane). No case for its use as a store of energy. Those projects will be dropped. Hope that helps.   

Man you are one massive luddite!

Mark i have posted dozens of projects on this thread, if youre too lazy to read them then thats on you mate!

Have a read below though, an industry in its infancy but rapidly gaining traction.

Hydrogen sparks change for the future of green steel production | ING

Steel majors invest in green steel, but change might be driven by contenders

This transformation of the steel industry is not simply a theoretical exercise and the largest steel makers in the world are now setting themselves on a pathway of reaching net zero emissions. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), over 615 million tons of steel or 18% of global production is under a net zero target and most aim to be carbon neutral by 2050.

Company analyses by BNEF show consensus in the near term. Almost all steelmakers agree that the focus should be on increasing recycling rates and improving the energy efficiency of the conventional coal-based process while piloting deep decarbonisation technology like CCS and hydrogen.

There is less consensus looking further ahead, with long-term technology choices differing between companies. Diversified majors like Baowu (China) and ArcelorMittal (Luxembourg), the two largest steel companies in the world, are testing both the CCS and hydrogen routes.

ThyssenKrupp (Germany), Posco (South Korea) and TataSteel IJmuiden (the Netherlands) plan to fully convert their fleets to hydrogen-based production. They are developing new equipment to accommodate lower-grade iron ore in hydrogen-based steelmaking. SSAB (Sweden) is at the forefront of hydrogen-based steelmaking but plans to primarily rely on purer forms of iron such as recycled steel.

Nippon Steel and JFE (both from Japan) aim to reduce emissions by applying CCS to existing coal-based blast furnaces but have recently started to investigate hydrogen too. While US Steel is somewhat lagging behind its peers, it will likely roll out pilots for both CCS and hydrogen on the back of increased policy support in the US for both hydrogen and CCS.

But the real change might not come from the steel majors who have billions of dollars worth of coal-based steel assets on their balance sheets. On a positive note, that provides them the capital to develop CCS and hydrogen. On a more negative note, it could limit real change as current assets may become stranded once hydrogen technology takes over.

Disruptive change might be driven by Tesla-style new entrants. Vulcan Green Steel from Oman is a new company in the industry that is planning to build a hydrogen-based steel plant from scratch. Blastr is doing similar things in Norway and Finland. GravitHy in France focuses on the production of green iron. Van Merksteijn is planning to build a green steel facility to produce a specialised steel product (wire rod) at the Eemshaven in the Netherlands. The H2 Green Steel mill in northern Sweden is currently the most advanced green steel project in Europe.

H2 Green Steel's location in Boden — H2 Green Steel

I bet you would have said Tesla a brand new entrant into automobile manufacture was a dream and would be a disaster.

For the year 2023, Tesla reported a total revenue of $96.8 billion, a 19% increase from the previous year. The company's GAAP net income for the year was $15.0 billion, with $7.9 billion recorded in the fourth quarter alone, largely due to a one-time non-cash tax benefit of $5.9 billion.

Wake up Mark youre clinging onto the past again!

Edited January 30 by Rob Plant

[markslawson + 1,057]

12 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Man you are one massive luddite!

Mark i have posted dozens of projects on this thread, if youre too lazy to read them then thats on you mate!

Have a read below though, an industry in its infancy but rapidly gaining traction.

Hydrogen sparks change for the future of green steel production | ING

Rob - your posts about the use of H2 in steel making. I was talking about its use as a store of energy for transport. You're pointing to technology they're trying to develop where they blow H2 through iron to get the temperatures required. You'll find that in those tests sites the H2 is made by hydrolysis on the spot from water. There is no reason why it can't be done but it is more expensive than using coal so it would require all coal producers to adopt it at the same time - otherwise the cheaper coal process will just push out the H2 users.

However, the point remains that you are arguing about another subject entirely, and my point about H2's total uselessness as a store of energy remains unanswered. Time for me to move on. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Rob - your posts about the use of H2 in steel making. I was talking about its use as a store of energy for transport. You're pointing to technology they're trying to develop where they blow H2 through iron to get the temperatures required. You'll find that in those tests sites the H2 is made by hydrolysis on the spot from water. There is no reason why it can't be done but it is more expensive than using coal so it would require all coal producers to adopt it at the same time - otherwise the cheaper coal process will just push out the H2 users.

However, the point remains that you are arguing about another subject entirely, and my point about H2's total uselessness as a store of energy remains unanswered. Time for me to move on. 

Ok you dont want to talk about industry now but storage. I believe you did say there were no practical use for H2

You said "There simply is no business case for the use of either H2 or NH3, end of story."   

You are now saying that due to storage and transportation issues you have to produce locally, when in a previous post you were advocating this "Say if you wanted to consume renewable power in Europe then generate it in North Africa - plenty of desert - and use a transmission line." So make your mind up!

As for costs in steel making, if you read the article I posted it addresses that issue and it is insignificant in the overall cost of production and that is why its gaining traction fast.

Anyway have a read on this

HyStock hydrogen storage › Gasunie

Storing Hydrogen in Underground Salt Caverns | Linde (lindehydrogen.com)

I agree that currently there are limitations but as technology improves many of the current issues will be solved.

Companies such as the one below are trying to overcome the transportation issue

SoluForce - Hydrogen-tight Flexible Composite Pipe

Edited January 31 by Rob Plant

[markslawson + 1,057]

21 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Ok you dont want to talk about industry now but storage. I believe you did say there were no practical use for H2

You said "There simply is no business case for the use of either H2 or NH3, end of story."

Rob - I was always referring to its use in storage. The whole argument has always been about storage, H2 is widely used in industry and I have said this several times. NH3 is also widely used but not for power.

Originally I wasn't going to reply at all but I saw this item in the Australian Financial Review and thought of you. The full article is behind a pay wall but from this excerpt you'll see that they have no faith in the H2 approach either. Haven't bothered to read the rest of your post. as we're just going around in circles with you insisting the argument is about something else. Now I will leave it with you.  

BlueScope has embarked on the upgrade because it believes that commercially viable technology for lower-carbon steelmaking is still probably at least 10 years off, in a sector which accounts for 8 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.

Mr Bowen agreed. “This is a hard-to-abate sector, steelmaking,” he said. “Green steel is coming, but it’s not here yet. And we need to work in partnership as we get there.”

The furnace upgrade will lock BlueScope into old-school steelmaking processes for at least two decades, but Mr Bowen said it was about ensuring that the plant would still be viable well into the future when newer technology was available. “It locks in steelmaking in Australia for the next hundred years,” he said.

Mr Bowen said no country in the world had shifted to full-scale commercial steel production with new technologies. “That is the key – making it commercial, making it competitive.”

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

“It locks in steelmaking in Australia for the next hundred years,” he said.

hahahaha how the fcuk does he know that? has he got a crystal ball?

He even says green steel is coming and is therefore the future, wow such backward thinking from your major steel manufacturer! Then again the "Master Plan" for the next 100 years is to diversify into emerging industries "like clean energy and defence", diversification now that's more sensible!

see below

PORT KEMBLA - After 18 months of intensive research, analysis and community engagement, BlueScope has unveiled the Master Plan to develop 200 Hectares (Ha) of non-steelmaking, excess landholdings adjacent to the Port Kembla Steelworks.

The Master Plan will see BlueScope transform the surplus land next door to its steelmaking plant, into a next generation multi-industrial precinct with potential to create 30,000 jobs in emerging industries like clean energy, defence etc.

BlueScope Unveils 100-Year Plan for Port Kembla Surplus Land

Enjoy the transition!

As for not reading my posts, well because I back up what I say with facts and the truth doesn't fit in with your mantra I guess you have no option but to bury your head in the sand as you currently are.

Lots of people dont like change, I guess your one of them.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 1/30/2024 at 11:53 PM, markslawson said:

Rob - your posts about the use of H2 in steel making. I was talking about its use as a store of energy for transport. You're pointing to technology they're trying to develop where they blow H2 through iron to get the temperatures required. You'll find that in those tests sites the H2 is made by hydrolysis on the spot from water. There is no reason why it can't be done but it is more expensive than using coal so it would require all coal producers to adopt it at the same time - otherwise the cheaper coal process will just push out the H2 users.

However, the point remains that you are arguing about another subject entirely, and my point about H2's total uselessness as a store of energy remains unanswered. Time for me to move on. 

Mark OK so lets talk H2 storage for transport, I agree its an issue due to the size of the molecule itself.

However have you seen this breakthrough in storage technology?

New Tech Could Make Hydrogen Cars a Commercial Reality

Small-pore hydridic frameworks store densely packed hydrogen | Nature Chemistry

New Tech Could Make Hydrogen Cars a Commercial Reality | OilPrice.com

Mark as I have been saying from day 1 of your thread there are numerous breakthroughs in H2 on a monthly basis, this being one of the latest and perhaps most significant if they can scale it and be economic, 2 big ifs I agree, but generally if mass produced not insurmountable.

You cannot base your ongoing beliefs of an industry thats in its infancy on tech and journals that are out of date. The longer you maintain those views the more out of date and wrong they become.

 

Edited March 15 by Rob Plant

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 3/15/2024 at 9:27 PM, Rob Plant said:

Mark OK so lets talk H2 storage for transport, I agree its an issue due to the size of the molecule itself.

However have you seen this breakthrough in storage technology?

Rob - again, sorry, but you've totally missed the point. If this breakthrough becomes commercially viable then great, get it out there. But what about all the other problems, like converting energy into H2 then back into energy being grossly inefficient? I've seen estimates of up to 75 per cent of energy lost. You may point to this or that breakthrough reducing that loss but again you have the problem that renewable energy can be produced anywhere, so why not produce it reasonably close to the point of consumption and use a transmission line? There are also tech developments in transmission lines. If you want to store energy why not use a battery? This is still a dumb idea but a battery is more efficient than H2 storage, and batteries are also being developed. No matter how you cut it H2 is of very little use as a store of energy, and no amount of pointing excitedly at yet another lab development is going to change that. When they set up a commercial system using H2 is the time to say I told you so. Leave it with you.      

[notsonice + 1,255]

13 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Rob - again, sorry, but you've totally missed the point. If this breakthrough becomes commercially viable then great, get it out there. But what about all the other problems, like converting energy into H2 then back into energy being grossly inefficient? I've seen estimates of up to 75 per cent of energy lost. You may point to this or that breakthrough reducing that loss but again you have the problem that renewable energy can be produced anywhere, so why not produce it reasonably close to the point of consumption and use a transmission line? There are also tech developments in transmission lines. If you want to store energy why not use a battery? This is still a dumb idea but a battery is more efficient than H2 storage, and batteries are also being developed. No matter how you cut it H2 is of very little use as a store of energy, and no amount of pointing excitedly at yet another lab development is going to change that. When they set up a commercial system using H2 is the time to say I told you so. Leave it with you.      

 like converting energy into H2 then back into energy being grossly inefficient? I've seen estimates of up to 75 per cent of energy lost???

how much energy is lost converting Nat gas to LNG and then transporting it in special ships and reconverting it back to Nat gas????? 20 percent easily

 

and then using it to create electricity??????

how much energy is lost using nat gas to create electricity 40 to 60 percent

all grossly inefficient 

the loss of converting water to H2...20 percent 

how much energy is wasted creating H2 gas from nat gas........same losses

remember the newly created H2 gas is proposed to displace nat gas for heating needs and also for the production of fertilizer

No matter how you cut it H2 is of very little use as a store of energy????? is not true......

you just will not admit H2 gas has the same usefulness as nat gas......

 

try again

 

 

[markslawson + 1,057]

23 hours ago, notsonice said:

how much energy is lost converting Nat gas to LNG and then transporting it in special ships and reconverting it back to Nat gas????? 20 percent easily

Notsonice - sure there are inefficiencies but in the case of natural gas its the source of the energy. Its not a means of storing energy. And its far easier to extract, store, transport and use than H2, which companies have been doing for decades without the benefit of any government programs designed to create the market (as is happening with hydrogen). If H2 is in any way comparable to natural gas in efficiency then let the market decide. You'll find that energy users won't bother.  

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Notsonice - sure there are inefficiencies but in the case of natural gas its the source of the energy. Its not a means of storing energy. And its far easier to extract, store, transport and use than H2, which companies have been doing for decades without the benefit of any government programs designed to create the market (as is happening with hydrogen). If H2 is in any way comparable to natural gas in efficiency then let the market decide. You'll find that energy users won't bother.  

Hydrogen Insights: Hydrogen project pipeline grows by 35% since January 2023 despite macro-economic headwinds

• Global clean hydrogen momentum continues despite macro-economic headwinds; the number of announced projects grew by about 35% to over 1,400 from about 1,050 in January – and more than doubled compared to May 2022. Announced projects represent over USD 570 billion investments through 2030, with strongest growth in projects in FEED (investments up by 60%).
• Deployment continues, with more than 1 GW electrolysis capacity deployed globally (400 MW added this year) and a total of 12 GW having passed FID. Announced clean hydrogen supply globally has reached about 45 Mt p.a. through 2030. However, only 7% of investments in clean hydrogen overall have passed FID. Continued efforts are needed to foster the faster maturing of projects from announcement to deployment.
• Globally, higher CapEx, more expensive renewable energy and higher cost of capital pushed up costs of producing renewable hydrogen – with costs increasing by 30–65% in the past year. The outlook remains positive, with renewable hydrogen production costs expected to fall to 2.5 – 4.0 USD/kg H₂ through 2030.

Mark although you wont be happy with the above as it doesnt fit with your mantra, these are the facts, and as you say "let the market decide". well it looks like it has dont ya think! Literally everyone who is in the energy sector is scrabbling for a piece of the pie!

[notsonice + 1,255]

19 hours ago, markslawson said:

Notsonice - sure there are inefficiencies but in the case of natural gas its the source of the energy. Its not a means of storing energy. And its far easier to extract, store, transport and use than H2, which companies have been doing for decades without the benefit of any government programs designed to create the market (as is happening with hydrogen). If H2 is in any way comparable to natural gas in efficiency then let the market decide. You'll find that energy users won't bother.  

natural gas its the source of the energy. Its not a means of storing energy??? 

nat gas is natures way of storing energy the only problem is it is also a storage mechanism for carbon and when it is used it releases the carbon into the atmosphere. You obviously miss out on the whole point of creating H2 by using excess, curtailed renewable energy.

The whole point is to reduce the use of naturally occurring stored energy as found in coal and natural gas deposits

you do realize that green nat gas is a giant business already..........and this is man made

and there is giant storage caverns around the world used to store nat gas both man made or naturally occurring and H2 can be stored and used exactly the same as nat gas.........a direct substitute 

H2 hydrolysis is exactly a means to create a stored source of energy for later use no different than taping nat gas deposits and then storing it in caverns

you really think that somehow your babbling about the inefficiencies of H2 and ignoring the ineffectiveness of nat gas is reason to not create or use H2 is a valid point?????

 

.....

and you now have abandoned your argument about H2 being inefficient once it is pointed out to you that burning Nat gas  or liquefying it is highly inefficient.... got it...... to babble about nat gas not being stored energy........ bizzare 

 

Edited March 20 by notsonice

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 3/20/2024 at 8:38 PM, notsonice said:

nat gas is natures way of storing energy the only problem is it is also a storage mechanism for carbon and when it is used it releases the carbon into the atmosphere. You obviously miss out on the whole point of creating H2 by using excess, curtailed renewable energy.

I'm well aware of why activists want to use H2, but you were trying to claim its inefficiencies weren't so bad compared to natural gas, which is simply wrong. In fact H2 is almost a complete waste of time as a store of energy. You'd be lucky to get any energy at all out of an H2 storage and transport system. Maybe some future breakthrough may make such systems viable, as Rob Plant has tried to claim, but I doubt it. There are indications that the enthusiasm for H2 is waning and that's a good thing. If you want to store and transport energy use batteries and a transmission line. The solution is hardly satisfactory but it makes vastly more sense than using H2. Now that it. I've wasted too much time on this topic. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

There are indications that the enthusiasm for H2 is waning and that's a good thing.

Haha are you mad?

Hydrogen Insights: Hydrogen project pipeline grows by 35% since January 2023 despite macro-economic headwinds

• Global clean hydrogen momentum continues despite macro-economic headwinds; the number of announced projects grew by about 35% to over 1,400 from about 1,050 in January – and more than doubled compared to May 2022. Announced projects represent over USD 570 billion investments through 2030, with strongest growth in projects in FEED (investments up by 60%).
• Deployment continues, with more than 1 GW electrolysis capacity deployed globally (400 MW added this year) and a total of 12 GW having passed FID. Announced clean hydrogen supply globally has reached about 45 Mt p.a. through 2030. However, only 7% of investments in clean hydrogen overall have passed FID. Continued efforts are needed to foster the faster maturing of projects from announcement to deployment.
• Globally, higher CapEx, more expensive renewable energy and higher cost of capital pushed up costs of producing renewable hydrogen – with costs increasing by 30–65% in the past year. The outlook remains positive, with renewable hydrogen production costs expected to fall to 2.5 – 4.0 USD/kg H₂ through 2030.

$570 billion investment up to 2030 and a 35% y-o-y growth yep thats really waning demand isnt it.

Thats comparable with this years total global upstream oil & gas industry investment ($580 billion)

OK H2 is over 6 years but H2 is still in its infancy and yet already is 1/6 of the oil and gas industry investment.

You still think H2 will never take off as an industry of note and cling to 1 Aussie blokes outdated comments in his stupid report that even your fellow Aussies in your own government have discounted as rubbish by ploughing ahead with these projects below. You will also note the storage possibilities as well, as that what you seem to be hung up about.

Current projects | Geoscience Australia (ga.gov.au)

Are you a fan of the wheel yet? Asking for my friend who is a wheelwright.

 

Edited March 22 by Rob Plant

[notsonice + 1,255]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

I'm well aware of why activists want to use H2, but you were trying to claim its inefficiencies weren't so bad compared to natural gas, which is simply wrong. In fact H2 is almost a complete waste of time as a store of energy. You'd be lucky to get any energy at all out of an H2 storage and transport system. Maybe some future breakthrough may make such systems viable, as Rob Plant has tried to claim, but I doubt it. There are indications that the enthusiasm for H2 is waning and that's a good thing. If you want to store and transport energy use batteries and a transmission line. The solution is hardly satisfactory but it makes vastly more sense than using H2. Now that it. I've wasted too much time on this topic. 

why activists want to use H2,?????? industries use H2 on massive scales....so are you calling the people who run/work in the Fertilizer industry ...activists???

 

dude you really have noclue what you are babbling about..........The fertilizer industry will use up all the Green H2 they can get their hands on.........

and that makes them Activists?????.....

I've wasted too much time on this topic.???? yep get back to scrubbing toilets

 

 

 

Top Industrial Uses of Hydrogen

WHA International

https://wha-international.com › News

 

 

 

Sep 20, 2020 — About 55% of the hydrogen around the world goes to ammonia production; 25% is used in refining and about 10% is used to produce methanol. Other 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

UK Natural Gas Grid Ready to Accommodate Hydrogen

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/UK-Natural-Gas-Grid-Ready-to-Accommodate-Hydrogen.html

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 7/25/2024 at 1:35 AM, Rob Plant said:

UK Natural Gas Grid Ready to Accommodate Hydrogen

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/UK-Natural-Gas-Grid-Ready-to-Accommodate-Hydrogen.html

I'm back! I was out with a nasty lung infection(s) for more than a month in hospital, but now I'm back and again pointing to the weaknesses in the case for Hydrogen. In this case if you look down the story helpfully linked by Rob, you'll see that cost remains a major issue. Sure you can use water and power to produce H2, and gas grids can use up to 10-20 per cent of supply without having to re-design all the appliances and the grid itself. You don't even have the problem of having to convert the gas back into power. Instead of being hopelessly inefficient it's just badly inefficient. If consumers are prepared to pay the extra - probably a lot extra - then go ahead but I doubt that the initiative will be welcomed.

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

I'm back! I was out with a nasty lung infection(s) for more than a month in hospital, but now I'm back and again pointing to the weaknesses in the case for Hydrogen. In this case if you look down the story helpfully linked by Rob, you'll see that cost remains a major issue. Sure you can use water and power to produce H2, and gas grids can use up to 10-20 per cent of supply without having to re-design all the appliances and the grid itself. You don't even have the problem of having to convert the gas back into power. Instead of being hopelessly inefficient it's just badly inefficient. If consumers are prepared to pay the extra - probably a lot extra - then go ahead but I doubt that the initiative will be welcomed.

Fossil fuel promoter nearly dies from lung issues.  Perfect.

Perhaps look up the primary sources of PM 2.5 and its effect on lung parenchyma.  Inflammation of the tissues increases infection risk and slows healing.

Reconsider your position on fossil fuels the next time you feel breathless.