The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[Mav]

Actually, that thing about frogs in a pan is frog$hit. Unless they’re anaesthetised, of course.

Maybe it would make more sense if you substituted a climate change denialist for the frog. You’d just have to find a pan big enough to fit Craig Kelly.

[LP]

And until hydrogen is generated using renewables rather than burning coal and making vague promises that there’ll be effective carbon capture at some stage this century, I’ll have my concerns.

So hydrogen isn't allowed to be developed using the very same energy source that was used to develop solar panels and wind turbines. :

There are directions other than left in this world!

[kruddler]

Actually, that thing about frogs in a pan is frog$hit. Unless they’re anaesthetised, of course.

Maybe it would make more sense if you substituted a climate change denialist for the frog. You’d just have to find a pan big enough to fit Craig Kelly.

I know its BS, but its an analogy.

[Mav]

Aren’t we talking about the continual burning of fossil fuels to drive the electrolysis that separates the hydrogen and oxygen? Maybe you might be able to tell us whether there will be any real reduction in greenhouse gases produced in that way compared to the continued use of petrol in cars and the like.

[Mav]

Maybe the frogs could hoist themselves out of the water by their own bootstraps?

Not sure saying it’s an analogy works any better than Michael Palin saying, “It was a pun!”

[LP]

Aren’t we talking about the continual burning of fossil fuels to drive the electrolysis that separates the hydrogen and oxygen? Maybe you might be able to tell us whether there will be any real reduction in greenhouse gases produced in that way compared to the continued use of petrol in cars and the like.

Just as solar panels were developed for over three decades using the base load supply at the time which was fossil fuel, hydrogen production will be developed using whatever base load supply is currently available.

Only mindless renewable advocates and the battery industry pump that hydrogen producing base load supply up as being purely sourced from coal or gas. Even a cursory examination exposes the bullcrap that hydrogen is only produced by burning coal. I don't blame them, it's about money, and lots and lots of it, maybe even your superannuation depends on some renewables performing well and continuing to receive subsidies!

At this stage, over the full battery lifecycle, even using the very latest available technologies including big flow batteries, hydrogen is a better option than batteries for storing excess solar PV or Wind generate power.

A genuine problem is that the best performing hydrogen fuel cells are patented, but I suspect eventually the global governments will work around that much as they have with vaccines. But that's not a technical argument, although opponents will paint it as the old world profiteering in an attempt to steer investors away, it again is all about money and the smeller is as bad as the fella!

[Mav]

As always, the devil’s in the details. The production of hydrogen in the Latrobe Valley uses coal gassification:

Hydrogen was extracted from Latrobe Valley coal and a mixture of biomass at a newly constructed plant located at AGL’s Loy Yang Complex in the Latrobe Valley through gasification and refining. Carbon offsets were purchased to mitigate emissions from the pilot. In the commercial phase, carbon dioxide would be captured during this process and stored deep underground in a process known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Even if totally green electricity were available to the producers, the gassification process releases copious greenhouse gases. That required carbon offsets in the pilot phase and would need carbon capture to work in the commercial phase. Carbon capture at the level needed is pie in the sky stuff. Has it even worked successfully at an experimental level? Green hydrogen via electrolysis would be a less risky proposition when it comes to combatting climate change but only if the vast amount of electricity required comes from renewable sources.

[Thryleon]

im wary of carbon offset.

To me its throwing money at pretending to be environmentally friendly.  Sure, its supposed to go to green initiatives but does it actually or does it fuel profits?

[Mav]

Yep. In principle, it might work but it’s easy to scam.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...rein-it-in

I was amazed that in the EU shifting from coal-fired to wood-fired power generation has been seen as part of their contribution to fighting climate change, simply because it’s a renewable power source. I guess it’s all about the definitions you use.

[kruddler]

im wary of carbon offset.

To me its throwing money at pretending to be environmentally friendly.  Sure, its supposed to go to green initiatives but does it actually or does it fuel profits?

100%.

Money can get you far in life.

To steal a large chunk of cynicism from LP.
Businesses are better of paying for carbon offsets rather than change anything they are doing.
I'd hazard a guess that not only is it cheaper to handover cash than to change the way they do things (machinery, factory setups, transportation etc etc etc) but it would probably give them a nice tax break in the process by reducing their profit margins, as well as 'donating' to the environment....which in turn gives them a nice gold star with investors and what not.

There is very little incentive for them to move away from what they are actually doing. Its potentially more beneficial to keep the status quo.
Propaganda!