If you allow use of grid power for hydrogen production then you are just using natural gas to make it in a different way. 40% of electricity in the US is from gas, 20% is from coal, 20 % nuclear. That leaves 20% for the rest like hydro, wind, solar... that 20% has to expand.
Indeed. The argument is more that if you were not producing hydrogen then you would not need more power capacity to be brought online. So the marginal increase of energy consumption should be clean and then you have to bring your own capacity online. It does not mean you need to be off the grid and completely plugged only to those capacities.
Hydrogen has its place, but is inefficient both to create and use, There are some industrial processes that need hydrogen, and green hydrogen could provide what is needed, as long as the applications are fairly niche. It would be foolish to attempt to use hydrogen where batteries or some other approach (non-CO2-based) would be more appropriate. So yes, green hydrogen has a role to play in reducing CO2, but it is a limited role, and complementary to renewable electrical energy.
Finally someone, who gets it. People always think of "MASSIVE OVERHAUL OF EVERYTHING". But it should be seen more like an add-on, which can REDUCE the use of fossile fuels. If we use all the possibilities we have with wind, solar, and Hydro, we might also reduce Diesel Generators for electricity production.
Only those who can cash in on hydrogen could be dumb enough to think it was anything more than a nice idea but stupidly inefficient compared to catching energy that falls out of the sky for free with a battery, then use it directly at more than double the efficiency, Meanwhile battery and solar tech improves and gets cheaper every single year, solar will improve from 20% to 30% (a 50% improvement by the way) for the same price and for the same surface area within a decade and batteries have even bigger room for advancements. We haven't even begun to comprehend what Ai will do for both.
If you allow use of grid power for hydrogen production then you are just using natural gas to make it in a different way. 40% of electricity in the US is from gas, 20% is from coal, 20 % nuclear. That leaves 20% for the rest like hydro, wind, solar... that 20% has to expand.
Indeed. The argument is more that if you were not producing hydrogen then you would not need more power capacity to be brought online. So the marginal increase of energy consumption should be clean and then you have to bring your own capacity online. It does not mean you need to be off the grid and completely plugged only to those capacities.
No, it depends on where and when you are using the power from the grid to determine the CO2 output.
using the grid makes Grey / Brown hydrogen - not green.
@@kevviethekiwinot if you put more renewables online (in a reasonable vicinity) and sync your production to those hours.
@@erbesnard it will remain grey until the grid only carries renewable energy - different grids are at different stages of transition.
Mass transit it the early user.Electrolyzer have not work for4 transit user. Where has a electrolyzer worked work?
Hydrogen has its place, but is inefficient both to create and use, There are some industrial processes that need hydrogen, and green hydrogen could provide what is needed, as long as the applications are fairly niche. It would be foolish to attempt to use hydrogen where batteries or some other approach (non-CO2-based) would be more appropriate. So yes, green hydrogen has a role to play in reducing CO2, but it is a limited role, and complementary to renewable electrical energy.
Finally someone, who gets it. People always think of "MASSIVE OVERHAUL OF EVERYTHING". But it should be seen more like an add-on, which can REDUCE the use of fossile fuels. If we use all the possibilities we have with wind, solar, and Hydro, we might also reduce Diesel Generators for electricity production.
Only those who can cash in on hydrogen could be dumb enough to think it was anything more than a nice idea but stupidly inefficient compared to catching energy that falls out of the sky for free with a battery, then use it directly at more than double the efficiency, Meanwhile battery and solar tech improves and gets cheaper every single year, solar will improve from 20% to 30% (a 50% improvement by the way) for the same price and for the same surface area within a decade and batteries have even bigger room for advancements. We haven't even begun to comprehend what Ai will do for both.
He's right. Change is expensive. Let's just make profits and live the best we can as long as it lasts.
Haha funny. The Arms manufacturers think EXACTLY the same thing. And look how much of the global workforce is disappearing within the blink of an eye.
The iffy clean gas should be grey because of the term “grey area”
interesting stuff here
And sound is aweful!
He's totally ignoring the Tesla Semi truck.
Yes, because everybody does. Smashing success? Where is it? Have honestly never seen one live.
Nuclear and hydrogen are the future!
You're half right
Wow what a creep!