03-07-2023, 11:49 PM
I’m all for more information about the latest scientific opinions about renewables but please link or quote rather than just giving a broad brush summary that always seems to be a bit self-serving. By the way, the study from Cornell was from 2021 but the lead author was quoted in The Guardian article which is fresh as a daisy. And yet his views don’t evidence the shift you suggest.
I’m sure you’ve given us your honest opinion about what stopped the project in which you were involved. But it seems to me that you aren’t great at providing a dispassionate analysis of the business case of projects. You have a cockeyed optimism that any weakness in a project can be overcome if only science is left alone to do its thing and the economic issues can be ignored. Yet reality has a way of hitting people in the face. I still can’t understand why you just wave your hand when oil and gas producers act contrary to your assurance that methane is a gold mine. They just burn it or release it. But apparently producers of blue hydrogen will be stunned by their good fortune and exploit methane byproducts to the hilt. Yes, there are those who think they can make Turquoise Hydrogen a thing, but it’s yet to be proved at scale (and the real world effect on the markets for those byproducts has yet to be seen). But why wouldn’t that be trumpeted far and wide by this Latrobe Valley project if that were even in contemplation? Imagine the favourable press you’d get boasting of turning methane into gold …
In your world, there’s only 1 type of conspiracy at play here. Apparently, bureaucrats, lawyers and economists are being pressured into blocking brilliant projects that use coal and the like by those nasty and all-powerful greenies. Won’t anyone help the poor fossil fuel industry when it just wants to work for the common good? Fear not, the fossil fuel industry is the one with the clout here, not the greenies. They pretty much have the conservative parties in the US and here on their payroll. And playing the victim is so on trend for conservatives even when they are the ones who have the power. And let’s face it - they have deep pockets and can pressure governments with almost unlimited advertising budgets (especially around elections) and lobbying efforts.
But you are right when you note there’s a battle for funding. The fossil fuel industry can crowd out green solutions if its “clean” solutions can suck in government funding. That’s especially so in Victoria as we have coal to exploit and a regional area that was dependent on coal-fired power. Once the government gets behind blue hydrogen, the die is cast as the infrastructure will be built around where the coal is rather than where the water is that green hydrogen production requires.
But we come back to the central weakness in the business case for blue hydrogen. How does it make sense to provide vast quantities of power to that industry just so it can produce a much smaller amount of power for largely overseas users? The energy loss involved in the process is staggering. It’s also bizarre that we would produce green electricity so we can avoid generating emissions only to use it to produce a lesser amount of power while releasing greenhouse emissions. And as the Cornell study showed, even if only green electricity is used in the process the emissions generated would be larger than if we just kept on using coal and petrol as we are now. That’s ripe for satire. If only the writers behind Yes, Minister were still around.
I’m sure you’ve given us your honest opinion about what stopped the project in which you were involved. But it seems to me that you aren’t great at providing a dispassionate analysis of the business case of projects. You have a cockeyed optimism that any weakness in a project can be overcome if only science is left alone to do its thing and the economic issues can be ignored. Yet reality has a way of hitting people in the face. I still can’t understand why you just wave your hand when oil and gas producers act contrary to your assurance that methane is a gold mine. They just burn it or release it. But apparently producers of blue hydrogen will be stunned by their good fortune and exploit methane byproducts to the hilt. Yes, there are those who think they can make Turquoise Hydrogen a thing, but it’s yet to be proved at scale (and the real world effect on the markets for those byproducts has yet to be seen). But why wouldn’t that be trumpeted far and wide by this Latrobe Valley project if that were even in contemplation? Imagine the favourable press you’d get boasting of turning methane into gold …
In your world, there’s only 1 type of conspiracy at play here. Apparently, bureaucrats, lawyers and economists are being pressured into blocking brilliant projects that use coal and the like by those nasty and all-powerful greenies. Won’t anyone help the poor fossil fuel industry when it just wants to work for the common good? Fear not, the fossil fuel industry is the one with the clout here, not the greenies. They pretty much have the conservative parties in the US and here on their payroll. And playing the victim is so on trend for conservatives even when they are the ones who have the power. And let’s face it - they have deep pockets and can pressure governments with almost unlimited advertising budgets (especially around elections) and lobbying efforts.
But you are right when you note there’s a battle for funding. The fossil fuel industry can crowd out green solutions if its “clean” solutions can suck in government funding. That’s especially so in Victoria as we have coal to exploit and a regional area that was dependent on coal-fired power. Once the government gets behind blue hydrogen, the die is cast as the infrastructure will be built around where the coal is rather than where the water is that green hydrogen production requires.
But we come back to the central weakness in the business case for blue hydrogen. How does it make sense to provide vast quantities of power to that industry just so it can produce a much smaller amount of power for largely overseas users? The energy loss involved in the process is staggering. It’s also bizarre that we would produce green electricity so we can avoid generating emissions only to use it to produce a lesser amount of power while releasing greenhouse emissions. And as the Cornell study showed, even if only green electricity is used in the process the emissions generated would be larger than if we just kept on using coal and petrol as we are now. That’s ripe for satire. If only the writers behind Yes, Minister were still around.