RichieRich$ + 65 RK June 21, 2023 And what hydrogen products will be able to replace plastics? You are a true believer in the biggest lies starting in the 70s. Not one scientist can determine what or if global warming is, take a look at the COVID lockdowns, the highly polluted Venice Canals in Italy turned back to their normal sea watercolor. The Earth has been changing perpetually since the beginning of time, Nobody fully understands everything that happens with the Earth, yet you and others want to continue to push the narrative the sky is falling, Well it is not, get over it. The EU and China along with India are the major cause of the release of pollutants and all want the United States to pony up Trillions, as are as the majority of Americans feel, we gave twice over, WW 1 and WW 2, what we spent in WW 2 in today's dollars would equal over 4.1 Trillion Dollars the most expensive war we ever were involved in! On 4/17/2023 at 10:19 PM, markslawson said: Posters on this site have been denying the reality of an apparent collapse in investment in green energy projects. Whenever this is mentioned they quote annual figures and total investment in teh sector in much the same manner as characters in movies hold up a Christian Cross to deter vampires. Sure some of the past annual growth looks impressive, if you don’t try to adjust the quoted plated capacity new wind and solar projects with the likely capacity factor. But in 2022 and this year green energy investments seem to have hit a wall, particularly in the last quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of this year. This is from the wind lobby group WindEurope, in February. The European Commission wants wind to be 43% of EU electricity consumption by 2030. But right now new investments and wind turbine orders are falling. 2022 saw only 13 GW of new wind farm investments announced. Not a single offshore wind farm reached final investment decision. Wind turbine orders fell by 47% on 2021 to 11 GW. There are two reasons why wind investments are falling. First is the high inflation in input prices which is insufficiently reflected in developers’ revenues. Higher commodity and other input costs have added 25-40% to the price of turbines, but wind farm developers are often stuck with a revenue base that is not indexed in line with this. Governments must fully index their auction prices and tariffs. Second, a series of unhelpful interventions in electricity markets by different national Governments have badly undermined investor confidence. Remember the 13 GW figure actually works out to an average output of 4.3 GW (average output for a windfarm is typically one third of plated capacity) and is for all of Europe. In other words, effectively nothing. In Australia, the Clean Energy Council has been producing releases pointing to impressive numbers for investment, with one story claiming that investment rose a full order of magnitude in the December 2022 quarter. Really? Anyway a check of commissioned projects (a more reliable indicator than proposals or finance approvals) listed on the site shows that just 17 were commissioned in 2022, representing 1,248 Megawatts (MW) of installed capacity, as opposed to 48 completed in covid-stricken 2021 adding up to 4,589 MW, and 3,205 MW worth of projects in 2020. In 2023 (meaning the March quarter of 2023) the number of projects was two, albeit seemingly large ones, adding up to 442 MWs. Why has this happened? WindEurope cited above gives part of the answer. Also, elsewhere the generous subsidies/tax breaks offered by the US Inflation Reduction Act is cited as siphoning off European investment to the US (I have not looked at the US figures but I'm not hopeful they will be much better). In addition, and probably mostly importantly of all, markets did not do well generally in 2022. A count of Initial Public Offerings (for Australia) on the securities exchange by professional services firm HLB Mann Judd shows that the number of new IPOs fell by 48 per cent in 2022, and total funds raised collapsed 91 per cent. Investment in renewables may pick up later, but in Australia the present hiatus could result in disaster in a few years, with activists still intent on throwing away the fossil fuel backup. As matters stand there may be nothing to replace those coal plants. Where can I buy a generator? pollutants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 June 21, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, RichieRich$ said: And what hydrogen products will be able to replace plastics? You are a true believer in the biggest lies starting in the 70s. Not one scientist can determine what or if global warming is, take a look at the COVID lockdowns, the highly polluted Venice Canals in Italy turned back to their normal sea watercolor. The Earth has been changing perpetually since the beginning of time, Nobody fully understands everything that happens with the Earth, yet you and others want to continue to push the narrative the sky is falling, Well it is not, get over it. The EU and China along with India are the major cause of the release of pollutants and all want the United States to pony up Trillions, as are as the majority of Americans feel, we gave twice over, WW 1 and WW 2, what we spent in WW 2 in today's dollars would equal over 4.1 Trillion Dollars the most expensive war we ever were involved in! pollutants Green hydrogen can be used to make any hydrocarbon required including that for plastic feedstock. We actually made a huge amount of money on WW1 and 2, sucked all the money out of the British empire and took over the world economy. Please try and keep up. Oh and 4.1 trillion dollars is just 5 years of the current military budget. From the beginning of lend lease till VJ day was 4.5 years. So we could basically fight WW2 today without increasing spending. Though I guess if you were in charge you would have surrendered to Japan after they attacked Pearl and you would be just fine with Hitler sinking our merchant marine in US national waters. https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2023 Edited June 21, 2023 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP June 21, 2023 6 hours ago, RichieRich$ said: what we spent in WW 2 in today's dollars would equal over 4.1 Trillion Dollars the most expensive war we ever were involved in! Dont forget as Jay says WW 2 totally bankrupted the world hegemon of the time ie the UK and paved the way for USA to rule the world ever since. Also dont forget the UK had been fighting the war balls out against Hitler for 26 months before the US joined after repeated pleas from Churchill for you to do so. Many European cities were completely obliterated during that 26 months, Coventry in the UK, Rotterdam in Holland to name a couple, let alone utter carnage in places like London and Birmingham. Hitler had to be stopped at any price, just like Putin has to be now. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichieRich$ + 65 RK June 21, 2023 8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said: Green hydrogen can be used to make any hydrocarbon required including that for plastic feedstock. We actually made a huge amount of money on WW1 and 2, sucked all the money out of the British empire and took over the world economy. Please try and keep up. Oh and 4.1 trillion dollars is just 5 years of the current military budget. From the beginning of lend lease till VJ day was 4.5 years. So we could basically fight WW2 today without increasing spending. Though I guess if you were in charge you would have surrendered to Japan after they attacked Pearl and you would be just fine with Hitler sinking our merchant marine in US national waters. https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2023 Adjusted for inflation to today's dollars, the war cost over $4 trillion. https://historyandheritage.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au › ... World War Two Financial Cost | Parramatta History and Heritage Military Costs of Major U.S. Wars Years of War Spending Peak Year of War Spending 13.6% World War I Current Year $ Constant FY2008$ World War II Current Year $ Constant FY2008$ Korea Current Year $ Constant FY2008$ 1917-1921 20 billion 253 billion 1941-1945 296 billion 4,114 billion 1950-1953 30 billion 320 billion 1945 35.8% 1952 27 more rows ft https://www.history.navy.mil > library TRY AGAIN! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichieRich$ + 65 RK June 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Dont forget as Jay says WW 2 totally bankrupted the world hegemon of the time ie the UK and paved the way for USA to rule the world ever since. Also dont forget the UK had been fighting the war balls out against Hitler for 26 months before the US joined after repeated pleas from Churchill for you to do so. Many European cities were completely obliterated during that 26 months, Coventry in the UK, Rotterdam in Holland to name a couple, let alone utter carnage in places like London and Birmingham. Hitler had to be stopped at any price, just like Putin has to be now. Well England had poor leadership, many documentaries proved that England should have never negotiated and signed the accords that gave Germany 2 years to blitz across the Chez countries and when hit France threw the entire army into it just to get creamed. England was desperate for U.S. Assistants after Dunkirk! Churchill pleaded for the U.S. to join the war, please remember the U.S. Was totally self-sufficient at that time and yet again we came to the rescue! In all actuality your war was not our war. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP June 21, 2023 57 minutes ago, RichieRich$ said: Well England had poor leadership, many documentaries proved that England should have never negotiated and signed the accords that gave Germany 2 years to blitz across the Chez countries and when hit France threw the entire army into it just to get creamed. England was desperate for U.S. Assistants after Dunkirk! Churchill pleaded for the U.S. to join the war, please remember the U.S. Was totally self-sufficient at that time and yet again we came to the rescue! In all actuality your war was not our war. I think how we got to be at war in 1939 was due to Hitler breaking every agreement he possibly could and believing he could with no recourse from England. Agreed though that Chamberlain was far too weak. Churchill could see that an attack either from Japan or Germany on the US would happen as they wrongly perceived you as timid, weak and not up for the fight and therefore there for the taking. Anyway glad you woke up to the shite that was happenning globally. Ironically Pearl harbour saved millions of lives. I think "our war" was every countries war in reality dont you? Otherwise you wouldnt be speaking English now but a weird mix of German/Japanese. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP June 21, 2023 Anyway back to topic GKN AEROSPACE LEADS DEVELOPMENT OF GROUND-BREAKING HYDROGEN PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR AIRCRAFT https://www.gknaerospace.com/en/newsroom/news-releases/2021/gkn-aerospace-leads-development-of-ground-breaking-hydrogen-propulsion-system-for-aircraft2/ One for your book Mark? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP June 21, 2023 Here’s how water, nitrogen and a simple sprayer could revolutionize the production of ammonia https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/green-ammonia-production-sustainable/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 21, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Here’s how water, nitrogen and a simple sprayer could revolutionize the production of ammonia https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/green-ammonia-production-sustainable/ solar panels and wind to the production of excess electricity to the production of Hydrogen to the production of Ammonia..... Ammonia has half the energy value of gasoline and is a liquid at Ammonia/Boiling point -28.01°F (-33.34°C)....IE you can use Ammonia to power a ship across an ocean as the storage of liquid Ammonia is not to difficult........ IE a low temperature freezer or deep freezer is cabable of storing liquid ammonia unlike liquid hydrogen or liquid Nat gas Global production capacity of ammonia 2018-2030 Statista https://www.statista.com › ... › Chemical Industry Mar 24, 2023 — The global production capacity of ammonia is expected to expand from around 235 million metric tons in 2019, to nearly 290 million metric tonnes in 2030 producing as a result about 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (about 1.8% of global carbon dioxide emissions) Ammonia synthesis is significantly the largest carbon dioxide emitting chemical industry process . Along with cement, steel and ethylene production, it is one of the ‘big four’ industrial processes emitting carbon dioxide Edited June 21, 2023 by notsonice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 June 21, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, RichieRich$ said: Adjusted for inflation to today's dollars, the war cost over $4 trillion. https://historyandheritage.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au › ... World War Two Financial Cost | Parramatta History and Heritage Military Costs of Major U.S. Wars Years of War Spending Peak Year of War Spending 13.6% World War I Current Year $ Constant FY2008$ World War II Current Year $ Constant FY2008$ Korea Current Year $ Constant FY2008$ 1917-1921 20 billion 253 billion 1941-1945 296 billion 4,114 billion 1950-1953 30 billion 320 billion 1945 35.8% 1952 27 more rows ft https://www.history.navy.mil > library TRY AGAIN! Huh? Try again at what? As I said: "4.1 trillion dollars is just 5 years of the current military budget. From the beginning of lend lease till VJ day was 4.5 years. So we could basically fight WW2 today without increasing spending." Our current annual military budget is $830B which is over 90% of what we spent per annum to prosecute WW2 in inflation adjusted WW2 dollars. Perhaps you should try reading again. Edited June 21, 2023 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichieRich$ + 65 RK June 21, 2023 7 hours ago, RichieRich$ said: Well England had poor leadership, many documentaries proved that England should have never negotiated and signed the accords that gave Germany 2 years to blitz across the Chez countries and when hit France threw the entire army into it just to get creamed. England was desperate for U.S. Assistants after Dunkirk! Churchill pleaded for the U.S. to join the war, please remember the U.S. Was totally self-sufficient at that time and yet again we came to the rescue! In all actuality your war was not our war. Yes the U.S. Was attacked by Japan, that said the United States did not have to get involved in the European war against Germany, as a matter of fact, if we had put the full force of American manufacturing and personnel strictly against Japan, we would have saved Billions of dollars and the true U.S. Treasure the American soldier. We would have ended the war with Japan much sooner. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 June 21, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, RichieRich$ said: Yes the U.S. Was attacked by Japan, that said the United States did not have to get involved in the European war against Germany, as a matter of fact, if we had put the full force of American manufacturing and personnel strictly against Japan, we would have saved Billions of dollars and the true U.S. Treasure the American soldier. We would have ended the war with Japan much sooner. We made a profit from fighting in Europe, it didn't cost us a dime and no we would not have ended the war with Japan sooner. No expense was spared but it took time to build aircraft carriers, submarines with working torpedoes, the B29 and atomic bomb. Those things could not have happened faster than they did. Seriously how can you not know anything about history? We took Guadalcanal in Feb. 1943. We didn't take N. Africa until May of 1943. D Day was June of '44. In the Pacific the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot happened in June of '44. That is where we destroyed the Japanese carrier force. The last great naval battle in the Pacific happened just a couple months later at Leyte Gulf where we destroyed their battleships and cut off the last of their oil supply. Edited June 21, 2023 by Jay McKinsey 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 June 21, 2023 8 hours ago, RichieRich$ said: Well England had poor leadership, many documentaries proved that England should have never negotiated and signed the accords that gave Germany 2 years to blitz across the Chez countries and when hit France threw the entire army into it just to get creamed. England was desperate for U.S. Assistants after Dunkirk! Churchill pleaded for the U.S. to join the war, please remember the U.S. Was totally self-sufficient at that time and yet again we came to the rescue! In all actuality your war was not our war. So you acknowledge that it was a mistake by the UK to give Germany time but you think the US would have been in great shape if we gave him time to take over Europe and build strength to where he could challenge the US directly. Seriously dumb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichieRich$ + 65 RK June 21, 2023 Sorry to break your dreams but England gave Germany 2 full years after looking the other way for the previous 2 years prior to that. Hitler was stupid but not stupid enough to believe that he could gain control of another continent! Kinda like in 1776.......! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 June 22, 2023 2 hours ago, RichieRich$ said: Sorry to break your dreams but England gave Germany 2 full years after looking the other way for the previous 2 years prior to that. Hitler was stupid but not stupid enough to believe that he could gain control of another continent! Kinda like in 1776.......! He was trying to takeover the Soviet Union as well which was the same size as all of North America. Once he completed taking over all of Europe and the Soviet Union why do you think he would stop? You are making the same mistake the UK made by thinking that he would be satisfied with Austria and Czechoslovakia. If we didn't fight him in the 40's we would just have fought him in the 50's. But by then he would have ballistic missiles that could reach Chicago. It had been an assumption of Hitler's since the 1920s that Germany would at some point fight the United States. As early as the summer of 1928 he asserted in his second book (not published until I did it for him in 1961) that strengthening and preparing Germany for war with the United States was one of the tasks of the National Socialist movement. Both because his aims for Germany's future entailed an unlimited expansionism of global proportions and because he thought of the United States as a country which with its population and size might at some time constitute a challenge to German domination of the globe, a war with the United States had long been part of the future he envisioned for Germany either during his own rule of it or thereafter. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/32084 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichieRich$ + 65 RK June 22, 2023 1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said: He was trying to takeover the Soviet Union as well which was the same size as all of North America. Once he completed taking over all of Europe and the Soviet Union why do you think he would stop? You are making the same mistake the UK made by thinking that he would be satisfied with Austria and Czechoslovakia. If we didn't fight him in the 40's we would just have fought him in the 50's. But by then he would have ballistic missiles that could reach Chicago. It had been an assumption of Hitler's since the 1920s that Germany would at some point fight the United States. As early as the summer of 1928 he asserted in his second book (not published until I did it for him in 1961) that strengthening and preparing Germany for war with the United States was one of the tasks of the National Socialist movement. Both because his aims for Germany's future entailed an unlimited expansionism of global proportions and because he thought of the United States as a country which with its population and size might at some time constitute a challenge to German domination of the globe, a war with the United States had long been part of the future he envisioned for Germany either during his own rule of it or thereafter. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/32084 Jay: Do you know what a “continent” Is, kinda like a continuous land mass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,490 June 22, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, RichieRich$ said: Jay: Do you know what a “continent” Is, kinda like a continuous land mass. Europe and Asia are continuous land masses but are two different continents. Africa was also continuous with Asia and thus Europe until the Suez canal was built. (oh and I'll point out that Hitler also had forces in Africa which means he had forces on two continents and was only a few miles from invading his third continent, Asia, at the peak of his power.) North and South America were also a continuous land mass until the Panama Canal was built. And where did the Nazi's flee to at the end? Argentina in South America. Do you even have the foggiest clue as to what you are talking about? Because I sure don't. Edited June 22, 2023 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 June 22, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said: Europe and Asia are continuous land masses but are two different continents. Africa was also continuous with Asia and thus Europe until the Suez canal was built. (oh and I'll point out that Hitler also had forces in Africa which means he had forces on two continents and was only a few miles from invading his third continent, Asia, at the peak of his power.) North and South America were also a continuous land mass until the Panama Canal was built. And where did the Nazi's flee to at the end? Argentina in South America. Do you even have the foggiest clue as to what you are talking about? Because I sure don't. The history of the USA in the 1930's carried considerable opposition to joining any war. There was even considerable support for (and acceptance of funding from) the Nazi party, even within the halls of Congress. Heck, even Charles Lindbergh was a firm opponent to the war, and he VISITED Nazi Gemany. Then, there was the MONEY to be made! For instance... IBM's German subsidiary, Dehomag, played a significant role in providing data processing technology to the Nazi regime. IBM's punch card machines were used by the German government and various Nazi organizations for tasks such as census data collection, identification of Jews, and coordinating the logistics of the Holocaust. Ford had a subsidiary in Germany called Ford-Werke, which operated under the control of the Nazi government. Ford-Werke produced vehicles for the German military, including trucks used by the German army during the war. General Motors owned the German car manufacturer Opel, which produced vehicles for the German military during the war. Opel's factories were used for war production, including tanks and other military vehicles. Standard Oil had a subsidiary in Germany called American IG Farben, which had business ties with the Nazi regime. IG Farben supplied synthetic fuel and rubber to the German military and was involved in various war-related industries. AND EVEN COCA-COLA! During the war, Coca-Cola continued to operate in Germany through its subsidiary, Coca-Cola GmbH. Although Coca-Cola claimed to maintain strict neutrality, it continued to produce and distribute its beverages in Germany throughout the war. Don't get me started on what Chase National Bank did... While the USA position and situation with Putin and Ukraine may not be exactly equal, it sure seems to rhyme. EXCEPT- This time, we now have weaponry available that is "to big to use". Edited June 22, 2023 by turbguy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 28, 2023 Finland aims to become green hydrogen leader New government strategy outlines plans to become 'a powerhouse of clean energy' 28 June 2023 10:24 Energy Storage The Finnish government has set out a new strategy to become "a powerhouse of clean energy" based on a hydrogen economy. According to the strategy, Finland's grid electricity is clean and the price is competitive in Europe; there is a favourable ratio of wind and solar power; and there is immense potential for developing both. By 2030, the country could produce over 14% of emission-free hydrogen in the EU, the report states. A hydrogen economy will contribute to Finland's well-being by reducing dependence on imports in various industrial sectors, thereby strengthening self-sufficiency and energy security, the report adds. Additionally, a hydrogen economy has the potential to create up to 115,000 new jobs by 2035. The strategy has been developed in collaboration with officials, industry unions, and companies involved in the entire hydrogen value chain. Achieving the set goals requires seamless and agile cooperation across industries, according to the government. It also defines practical measures to achieve the set objectives. Minister of the Environment and Climate Kai Mykkänen states the newly formed government also intends to promote hydrogen economy in practise by expediting and streamlining permitting processes, creating incentives for diverse electricity production growth. It is also aiming for rapid and comprehensive adoption of carbon capture and utilization by the mid-2030s. Mykkänen said: "The new government program is based on Finland becoming a powerhouse of clean energy. "It is the most important industrial and climate action of the decade, and it is based on a hydrogen economy. “Finland needs to define which opportunities we want to focus on to genuinely leverage the unique opportunity to position Finland as a pioneer in Europe's hydrogen economy.” 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP June 28, 2023 1 hour ago, notsonice said: Finland aims to become green hydrogen leader New government strategy outlines plans to become 'a powerhouse of clean energy' 28 June 2023 10:24 Energy Storage The Finnish government has set out a new strategy to become "a powerhouse of clean energy" based on a hydrogen economy. According to the strategy, Finland's grid electricity is clean and the price is competitive in Europe; there is a favourable ratio of wind and solar power; and there is immense potential for developing both. By 2030, the country could produce over 14% of emission-free hydrogen in the EU, the report states. A hydrogen economy will contribute to Finland's well-being by reducing dependence on imports in various industrial sectors, thereby strengthening self-sufficiency and energy security, the report adds. Additionally, a hydrogen economy has the potential to create up to 115,000 new jobs by 2035. The strategy has been developed in collaboration with officials, industry unions, and companies involved in the entire hydrogen value chain. Achieving the set goals requires seamless and agile cooperation across industries, according to the government. It also defines practical measures to achieve the set objectives. Minister of the Environment and Climate Kai Mykkänen states the newly formed government also intends to promote hydrogen economy in practise by expediting and streamlining permitting processes, creating incentives for diverse electricity production growth. It is also aiming for rapid and comprehensive adoption of carbon capture and utilization by the mid-2030s. Mykkänen said: "The new government program is based on Finland becoming a powerhouse of clean energy. "It is the most important industrial and climate action of the decade, and it is based on a hydrogen economy. “Finland needs to define which opportunities we want to focus on to genuinely leverage the unique opportunity to position Finland as a pioneer in Europe's hydrogen economy.” I wonder if Mark will stick that in his book?🤣 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 June 28, 2023 Yea, it will be in his book all right... Chapter 5: Finish Nuclear Hydrogen: Subtitle Morons in the green nature religion play make believe Finland has any solar potential with a whiff of wind potential far inferior to that of the north sea Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 June 29, 2023 (edited) If hydrogen can be produced for $1/Kg, that will blow the pants off of fossil fuels in MANY common uses. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Fuel-Cells/Hydrogen-Economy-Gets-A-Boost-With-New-Low-Cost-Catalyst.html Hydrogen contains almost THREE TIMES the heat content (LHV), per unit mass, than even diesel fuels. Aircraft manufacturers will find the potential weight savings difficult to ignore. That said, there are several engineering challenges to overcome. It might just keep the reciprocating heat engine alive for the foreseeable future! Edited June 29, 2023 by turbguy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 June 29, 2023 H2 is ? $5/kg? In the USA making it from dirt cheap Ch4...? If roses are read and violets are blue, what stupid dreams can we spew regarding H2... Why only dream about $1/kg H2... ? I saw one article a couple years ago playing make believe H2 will drop to $0.10/kg... I shit you not... Also in same article the dumb clucks also said H2 storage would cost $0.30/kg.... All in the same article... 👍👍 🤡 World Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP July 12, 2023 On 6/29/2023 at 4:23 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said: H2 is ? $5/kg? In the USA making it from dirt cheap Ch4...? If roses are read and violets are blue, what stupid dreams can we spew regarding H2... Why only dream about $1/kg H2... ? I saw one article a couple years ago playing make believe H2 will drop to $0.10/kg... I shit you not... Also in same article the dumb clucks also said H2 storage would cost $0.30/kg.... All in the same article... 👍👍 🤡 World Oops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHMp9OUQgUg Hydrogen Fuel! Scientist James Tour Demonstrates Method For Free & Clean Green Energy Alternative Far less expensive source of hydrogen than wind or solar excess, while disposing of waste materials and producing graphene. It could eventually replace or blend with natural gas for a primary energy source. Vehicles could use it directly also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP July 20, 2023 https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-ventures/hydrogen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
