Posted on 08/12/2021 5:27:00 PM PDT by blueplum
Report titled ‘How Green is Blue Hydrogen?’ generates buzz, and pushback, as Biden, Congress and Wall Street promote the energy source in path toward zero emissions
Clean hydrogen is a fuel the Biden administration believes will be part of the toolkit necessary to propel the U.S. to zero emissions by 2050, not to mention a 50% cut in those emissions as soon as the end of this decade. But a peer-reviewed study out Thursday argues that the fuel’s credentials need reconsideration.
Some energy-industry and clean-air analysts raised their own concerns that the study, published in the Energy Science & Engineering journal by researchers from Cornell and Stanford Universities, misapplied short-term findings to a long-term view...
The paper argues that across the “blue” hydrogen supply chain, the process actually emits more than simply burning natural gas for its traditional uses....
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Facts are entirely irrelevant to folks with a narrative. Reality is a mental construct to the higher IQ types on the Left.
How much money for the anti-hydrogen propaganda comes from the battery lobby?
Hydrogen fuel is a battery. Energy from other fuels is used in its production. Natural gas and petroleum are batteries, the source of energy was ancient sunlight stored in plants and such...etc.
Blue hydrogen is green washing at its finest. Why take perfectly good natural gas and strip 50% of its energy content by removing the carbon atom from it’s 4 hydrogen atoms. Since carbon binds to two oxygen atoms and hydrogen bonds with one. When you burn methane CH4 you oxidize it with 6 oxygen atoms each with 2 electrons to share with carbon and one with hydrogen if you strip out that carbon you have wasted that carbon to oxygen binding energy with 2 atoms of oxygen and 4 electrons total the now diatomic hydrogen bonds with one oxygen for each two hydrogen only moving two electrons each reaction. Chemical energy is defined by the movement of electrons more is better.
Taking the carbon out throws away half of your electron volts. You could go the plasma black route and plasma crack methane into h2 gas and elemental carbon then feed that carbon to direct carbon fuel cells yielding 60+% efficiency to DC current sell the electricity via inverters on the grid and sell the H2 gas to be used in fuel cells as well at 50% efficiency the over all efficiency going that route is better than just burning it in a turbine at 35% efficiency in a simple cycle gas turbine power plant. Integrated combined cycle plants approach 60% efficiency with a steam bottoming cycle and regeneration heat exchangers but they are significantly more expensive than gas turbine cycle plants.
I tell my college students all the time in lecture. “Fossil fuels” are nothing more than stored ancient sunlight. It takes well over a metric tonne of algae or diatoms settled to the ancient seafloor buried under at least 2km of additional sediments and put through the petroleum window of time,pressure and temperature to create one US gallon of petrol. The actual number is closer to two metric tonnes of organic matter to one US gallon of hydrocarbons. I teach geology from time to time at University for extra cash and to help out an alma mater if they are short a lecturer.
Burning hydrogen emits hazardous material DHMO, which has done untold environmental damage.
It takes energy to produce hydrogen. Where you procure that energy determines how “clean” it is. If you get your energy from nukes then it’s pretty clean, if you burn natural gas to get the energy then you’re still emitting carbon dioxide to produce the hydrogen, just at a different place.
...... In total, they found that the greenhouse-gas footprint of blue hydrogen was more than 20% greater than just burning natural gas or coal for heat, and 60% more than burning diesel oil for heat......
___________________
Later in the article ..... $8 billion earmarked by congress for hydrogen ...
Now that’s some lobbying !
Hydrogen is a byproduct of nuclear fusion.
What is that from?
Helium.
Oh the humanity!
It’s no different that most of the fake green crap like lithium mining and waste for precious batteries to save the planet while they rape it.
I am with you. I you’d to tell people that my Chevy truck was solar powered...
I remember during the Bush years that the libs were against it because a Republican president suggested that. I thought bacteria would liberate the hydrogen by a chemical process. No natural gas was needed in the process.
Why aren't we hearing anything about that?
Green Energy perpetual motion machines - bump for later...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.