Hydrogen based energy policy appears to be a bad idea

[gmb42]

An article analysing how a hydrogen based energy policy promoted by fossil-fuel companies looks like an economic bubble in waiting:

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysis/liebreich-hydrogen-is-starting-to-look-like-an-economic-bubble-and-here-s-why/2-1-1334006

Another negative report about possible use of hydrogen for transport vehicles, this time for trains:

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/will-no-longer-be-considered-hydrogen-trains-up-to-80-more-expensive-than-electric-options-german-state-finds/2-1-1338438

[bidrohini]

Thanks for sharing.

[Kleinstein]

This looks like a rather industry funded study.  To me this looks it may actually get attractive - otherwise there would be little need to spend money on biases studies to stop it.

[Faringdon]

Battery vs Hydrogen fuel cell EVs
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/battery-ev-vs-hydrogen-fuel-cell-ev/175/

Good way to find more such articles on a website....
site:eevblog.com hydrogen EV

[nctnico]

This looks like a rather industry funded study.  To me this looks it may actually get attractive - otherwise there would be little need to spend money on biases studies to stop it.

Indeed. Suddenly countries with no natural resources to speak of but with large, sunny deserts find that they do have a great natural resource: space to put solar panels. Hydrogen makes it easy to sell energy to whoever wants to pay the most. Just recently the Dutch government has reached provisional agreements with several countries to suppy hydrogen. Ofcourse the countries with large fossil fuel reserves don't like that at all.

[coppice]

This looks like a rather industry funded study.  To me this looks it may actually get attractive - otherwise there would be little need to spend money on biases studies to stop it.

Indeed. Suddenly countries with no natural resources to speak of but with large, sunny deserts find that they do have a great natural resource: space to put solar panels. Hydrogen makes it easy to sell energy to whoever wants to pay the most. Just recently the Dutch government has reached provisional agreements with several countries to suppy hydrogen. Ofcourse the countries with large fossil fuel reserves don't like that at all.

If you have plenty of solar power to create fuel molecules, why create ones that are such a PITA as hydrogen? You could use atmospheric CO2 and water to synthesise something like ethanol using your solar power. These 'hydrogen will never work" articles are basically right, but they are straw man arguments. They try to keep people's eyes off related concepts with more potential. Solar power to liquid fuels has real potential.

[Kleinstein]

The first step with green hydrogen is however not using it in cars or trains, but to use it in chemistry. There is currently quite a lot of natural gas used to produce hydrogen for the use in chemisty, e.g. producing more gasoline (in stead of more heavy oils) and producing amonia for fertilizers and other chemistry.  Chances are it would be quite some time before there would be excess green hydrogen, just to replace the current uses of hydrogen.

With some uses, like the production of amonia it would also make more sense to move that to the energy sources. Amonia is easier to transport than hydrogen.
Chances are some of the chemical industry will follow the energy soures.

Trains and cars are different in that a train can use more weight and volume for storage. So I am more sceptical with cars and trucks than trains. To a large part hydrogen via fuel cell and just battery powered is not that different. So chances are they can switch in both directions later if needed. Hydrogen can very much makes sense when used for long term storrage anyway. The efficiency is not great, but hydrogen is still one of the few options we have for long term energy-storage.

Solar power to liquid fuel is way worse in efficiency - you start with hydrogen and a combustion motor is more like less than half the efficiency of a fuel cell. So synthetic fuels mainly make sense for the few cases, like planes that have trouble with a heay tank.

[nctnico]

And yet Toyota is working on hybrids that use hydrogen in an ICE instead of fuel cells. According to the latest plans these cars will hit the market somewhere in 2025.

[coppice]

And yet Toyota is working on hybrids that use hydrogen in an ICE instead of fuel cells. According to the latest plans these cars will hit the market somewhere in 2025.

People have been making hydrogen powered ICE cars in small numbers since the 1980s. The filling systems at hydrogen stations for fuel cell cars look just like ones I saw being demonstrated in the 1980s in a hydrogen powered BMW 7. If that market hasn't grown to something self sustaining in 40 years, I can't see it doing well now.

[Marco]

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysis/liebreich-hydrogen-is-starting-to-look-like-an-economic-bubble-and-here-s-why/2-1-1334006

Attacks consumer cars and home heating. These are not representative for the huge problems hydrogen is supposed to solve in the net zero scenario.

Oh wait he mentions the steel industry too, well that's nice because there hydrogen has no alternative. Does he really think carbon capture to offset burning coke will be able to compete with using hydrogen for reducing in steel production?

Another negative report about possible use of hydrogen for transport vehicles, this time for trains:

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/will-no-longer-be-considered-hydrogen-trains-up-to-80-more-expensive-than-electric-options-german-state-finds/2-1-1338438

Again not a representative example.

Seasonal storage -> hydrogen competes against nuclear and 10x over-provisioning of renewables.
Long haul trucking and to a lesser extent long range consumer cars -> hydrogen competes against ultra-fast charging and synthetic fuels and non arable land biofuels.
Airplanes and marine transport -> hydrogen competes only against synthetic fuels and non arable land biofuels.

These are the major problems hydrogen is supposed to tackle. Any attack which doesn't address them in a net zero scenario is disingenuous, stupid or naive.

PS. ultra fast charging is ongoing research and would likely require battery storage at fuel stations due to the huge peak power. Synthetic fuels and non arable land biofuels are ongoing research with very low technological readiness, synthetic fuel will likely always be eye watering expensive even compared to dealing with hydrogen and for non arable land biofuels there are no easy solutions. Open sea has bugger all nutrient density up top, pond growing with seawater is expensive, closed bioreactors are expensive.

PPS. "The numbers are staggering" is the most accurate statement in those links, Net Zero is like a couple dozen space races rolled into one. Nothing in history approaches the scale of resource redirection necessary to accomplish it except the World Wars, luckily we're rich beyond equal in history too.

[nctnico]

And yet Toyota is working on hybrids that use hydrogen in an ICE instead of fuel cells. According to the latest plans these cars will hit the market somewhere in 2025.

People have been making hydrogen powered ICE cars in small numbers since the 1980s. The filling systems at hydrogen stations for fuel cell cars look just like ones I saw being demonstrated in the 1980s in a hydrogen powered BMW 7. If that market hasn't grown to something self sustaining in 40 years, I can't see it doing well now.

Well, write a letter to the CEO of Toyota then. Tell him he is doing it all wrong despite having made Toyota the biggest car manufacturer in the world with the best hybrid technology. If you really look more close you'll see that Toyota is among the very few car manufacturers that actually is taking CO2 and harmfull emissions seriously instead of cheating / clinging on to obsolete technology / window dressing.

[coppice]

And yet Toyota is working on hybrids that use hydrogen in an ICE instead of fuel cells. According to the latest plans these cars will hit the market somewhere in 2025.

People have been making hydrogen powered ICE cars in small numbers since the 1980s. The filling systems at hydrogen stations for fuel cell cars look just like ones I saw being demonstrated in the 1980s in a hydrogen powered BMW 7. If that market hasn't grown to something self sustaining in 40 years, I can't see it doing well now.

Well, write a letter to the CEO of Toyota then. Tell him he is doing it all wrong despite having made Toyota the biggest car manufacturer in the world with the best hybrid technology. If you really look more close you'll see that Toyota is among the very few car manufacturers that actually is taking CO2 and harmfull emissions seriously instead of cheating / clinging on to obsolete technology / window dressing.

Toyota has put a lot of resources into hydrogen fuel cell cars, with little to show for it. They have done great work in many areas, but they do seem to be having trouble letting go of hydrogen. I don't know how much hydrogen embrittlement would affect an ICE engine, but they clearly have most of the pieces (hydrogen tanks, safety systems, etc.) already in place to get a hydrogen powered ICE car to market.

[Kleinstein]

For CO2 free steel production there are alternatives:  there are 2 forms of electrolysis that can be used: one is from the melt, a bit like making aluminum. The other is a from of aqueous electrolysis followed by melting in an arc furnace of similar. Chances are these methods would be more energy efficient.

Carbon capture and maybe using char coal would be also possible.

AFAIK the facilities to produce hydrogen are relatively cheap, so there is no big problem to have sufficient capacity to use all excess. So over-provisioning of renewables kind of goes together with hydrogen. Already the option to make good use for excess ernergy helps with the storrage problem. Converting hydrogen back to electricity would only be a small part to come later.
To me the idea of a hybrid with a hydrogen powered combustion engine sounds a bit strange. A fuel cell should be better efficiency and thus possible to save on the tank. Looks more like a last straw to keep the ICE alive at all costs, may be for historic reasons.

[nctnico]

To me the idea of a hybrid with a hydrogen powered combustion engine sounds a bit strange. A fuel cell should be better efficiency and thus possible to save on the tank. Looks more like a last straw to keep the ICE alive at all costs, may be for historic reasons.

Yes and no. In the end it is all about costs. A couple of days ago I read an article with the CEO of PSA (brands: French car company with brands like Citroen, Peugot, Opel, etc) complaining cars are becoming too expensive and stricter emission limits are not helping. Toyota also showed a prototype car using solid state batteries that are supposed to be mass produced somewhere around 2027. If you add things up you can see where a hydrogen ICE fits in: a car like that simply costs less to buy.

[Marco]

char coal

Same problem as arable land biofuel and pellet burning electricity plants, takes way too much land (in the case of pellet burning electricity plants more land than we have on earth).

[Marco]

If you add things up you can see where a hydrogen ICE fits in: a car like that simply costs less to buy.

Maybe better to just give a government loan for the batteries and roll it into their tax bill so they don't see battery cost as a line item and make a slightly more sane decision.

[Zero999]

This looks like a rather industry funded study.  To me this looks it may actually get attractive - otherwise there would be little need to spend money on biases studies to stop it.

Indeed. Suddenly countries with no natural resources to speak of but with large, sunny deserts find that they do have a great natural resource: space to put solar panels. Hydrogen makes it easy to sell energy to whoever wants to pay the most. Just recently the Dutch government has reached provisional agreements with several countries to suppy hydrogen. Ofcourse the countries with large fossil fuel reserves don't like that at all.

If you have plenty of solar power to create fuel molecules, why create ones that are such a PITA as hydrogen? You could use atmospheric CO2 and water to synthesise something like ethanol using your solar power.

The problem is CO₂ in the atmosphere is so diluted, it's impossible to extract it and convert it to methanol with any efficiency. Biofuels is really the only way to do that, but it's better to use the space to grow crops for food. Waste biomass is a more sensible alternative, but there's only so much of that available.

[tszaboo]

This looks like a rather industry funded study.  To me this looks it may actually get attractive - otherwise there would be little need to spend money on biases studies to stop it.

Indeed. Suddenly countries with no natural resources to speak of but with large, sunny deserts find that they do have a great natural resource: space to put solar panels. Hydrogen makes it easy to sell energy to whoever wants to pay the most. Just recently the Dutch government has reached provisional agreements with several countries to suppy hydrogen. Ofcourse the countries with large fossil fuel reserves don't like that at all.

If you have plenty of solar power to create fuel molecules, why create ones that are such a PITA as hydrogen? You could use atmospheric CO2 and water to synthesise something like ethanol using your solar power.

The problem is CO₂ in the atmosphere is so diluted, it's impossible to extract it and convert it to methanol with any efficiency. Biofuels is really the only way to do that, but it's better to use the space to grow crops for food. Waste biomass is a more sensible alternative, but there's only so much of that available.

Liquid CO2 on an industrial scale costs somewhere around 40-80 EUR/T so on today's market you can just buy it.
The chemical plan can directly work from intermodal tanks, to intermodal tanks (or the city gas grid), processing CO2 with tap water water to CH4. Coal fired power plants are doing (and will do) CO2 capture to reduce their carbon emissions, because they are charged for carbon credits, and if they capture it, they don't have to.
Honestly carbon capture makes no sense, when there are still industries that just release it in the air.
And while hydrogen is simple to create, it is not as simple to store and use as LNG or CNG.
Honestly, the smallest plant like this that I can envision is just two 20 foot container in size, that is scattered in the back parking lots of industrial districts. Using energy when it is super cheap/free/negative price.

[Kleinstein]

char coal

Same problem as arable land biofuel and pellet burning electricity plants, takes way too much land (in the case of pellet burning electricity plants more land than we have on earth).

For some chemical processes using char coal can be a good alternative. One can make char coal not only from wood, but also other biomass and if done in a controlled / closed system this process also provides other chemmicals (e.g. acetic acid, CO), that can be a good alternative to oil / coal for the chemical industry e.g. for producing plastics. So chances are we will need quite some use of biomass for this. A process that should be reduced is the old style of making char coal, that burn or discharge all the byproducts.

Just burning biomass to produce electricity or heat is much more questionalble, as there are better alternatives of directly producing electricty from the sun. The biomass is good for more than energy. The plants are also quite good in capturing the CO2 from the air, but not that efficient in collecting solar power.

To me the idea of a hybrid with a hydrogen powered combustion engine sounds a bit strange. A fuel cell should be better efficiency and thus possible to save on the tank. Looks more like a last straw to keep the ICE alive at all costs, may be for historic reasons.

Yes and no. In the end it is all about costs.

I totally agree with the importance of costs, as ideally the price reflects the effort and resources needed. The problem is that current prices are still based on cheap oil and coal, so prices will change.
Cost wise a combustion engine is not very effective, if the fuel price gets higher. The capacities to produce synthetic or bio-fuels are limited and they will likely stay expensive. It can still compete in some areas (e.g. air trafic, low usage parts like emergency equipment). Poor efficiency is kind of indicating that there is little chance for them to become cheap. AFAIK synthetic and bio fuels are currently about 3 and 2 times more expensive than conventional when taking out the taxes and subsedies. Plants are already grown in large volume - so little chance to hope for help from larger quantity, more like the problem of limited resources and rising prices.

[mfro]

I'm pretty convinced that hydrogen *will* play a significant role in future energy mix.

Once societies are really going serious with alternative energy ("if" is probably not the question, it's rather a "when"), they will need to build up enough capacity for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun is not shining. Consequently, these capacities will become significant overcapacities when they are.

As idling windmills and cut solar panel feeds would be a huge waste, they will need to do something with that fair weather power. As there is only so much water you can pump uphill into reservoir power stations, the only other technology that's at least half way there is hydrogen production.

At a certain point, this will make - despite the weak efficiency factor - hydrogen a cheap energy source

[voltsandjolts]

Grid scale energy is delivered either by electricity or gas.

The electricity grid has huge challenges in the near future, with the simultaneous transition to renewable generation and electrified transport (i.e. massive increase in consumption). It's hard to imagine that the electric grid could also cope with the shutdown of the natural gas grid and subsequent additional electric consumption. I can't see that being feasible.

We have to make use of the gas grid infrastructure to deliver energy that the electric grid simply can't hope to deliver alone (my thoughts anyway). If we move away from natural gas, then we need to fill the gas network with something else, green gas. Hydrogen, ammonia,... whatever. But how we produce a green gas on such a vast scale as we currently consume natural gas seems like an impossible problem. We are stuck on natural gas for the foreseeable future.

I predict energy efficient houses with a bit of land, enough for wind turbine(s) and solar, will become very much sought after in the next decade or so. Off-grid may be the future. For business too.

[Siwastaja]

And yet Toyota is working on hybrids that use hydrogen in an ICE instead of fuel cells. According to the latest plans these cars will hit the market somewhere in 2025.

Are you freaking serious  .

Toyota has played the hydrogen bait-and-switch game for what, two decades for now, non-stop. It's always just a few years ahead. They have no real intention whatsoever to produce hydrogen vehicles, never had, for reasons obvious to every engineer-minded person apparently except you. It was just smoke screen for EV development, and now it's becoming a deprecated strategy as Toyota has revealed that actually they did have serious BEV program all the time (despite publicly stating they don't believe in BEVs), and now you can finally buy a Toyota EV.

[Marco]

For some chemical processes using char coal can be a good alternative.

It's a matter of scale, feeding old coal plants, flying planes, steel industry .... there ain't enough waste biomass for even one of them and even one of them would need many times what is now dedicated to bioethanol, which already takes up a ton of arable land as it is.

You can't solve these problems by throwing all this kinds of small scale stuff at it, the big solutions are needed regardless. Government shouldn't be distracted by the small stuff, leave that to the market.

[nctnico]

And yet Toyota is working on hybrids that use hydrogen in an ICE instead of fuel cells. According to the latest plans these cars will hit the market somewhere in 2025.

Are you freaking serious  .

Toyota has played the hydrogen bait-and-switch game for what, two decades for now, non-stop. It's always just a few years ahead. They have no real intention whatsoever to produce hydrogen vehicles, never had, for reasons obvious to every engineer-minded person apparently except you. It was just smoke screen for EV development, and now it's becoming a deprecated strategy as Toyota has revealed that actually they did have serious BEV program all the time (despite publicly stating they don't believe in BEVs), and now you can finally buy a Toyota EV.

You may think that but remember your reaction is similar to those of many when Toyota introduced their hybrid technology. Technology that has not made it necessary for Toyota to sell BEVs in the EU in order to meet average CO2 limits for cars sold. Appearantly they foresaw and planned this decades ahead of time. To me it is crystal clear that Toyota is executing a carefully planned long term strategy which includes several escapes (like selling BEVs in markets where there is demand). But they also seem to understand very well that BEVs aren't a universal answer. To me it is very reasonable to assume their hydrogen strategy is playing the long game (even though it seemingly makes no sense to some).

[Siwastaja]

Toyota introduced hybrid technology by starting to sell hybrid cars. Toyota "introduced" hydrogen by never really having any plans to actually sell hydrogen cars, and did this every year for 20+ years straight. A big difference.

Political opinions of non-technical people are of no interest to me. Hybrids were a significant technological improvement in city traffic in 1990's, and that was clear as day at the time to technical people. Hydrogen vehicles were bullshit and still are, as evidenced by Toyota not actually doing them, and instead finally doing exactly what they told us hundreds of times they will not do: BEV. And this was clear as day to technical people, too.

[coppice]

You may think that but remember your reaction is similar to those of many when Toyota introduced their hybrid technology. Technology that has not made it necessary for Toyota to sell BEVs in the EU in order to meet average CO2 limits for cars sold. Appearantly they foresaw and planned this decades ahead of time. To me it is crystal clear that Toyota is executing a carefully planned long term strategy which includes several escapes (like selling BEVs in markets where there is demand). But they also seem to understand very well that BEVs aren't a universal answer. To me it is very reasonable to assume their hydrogen strategy is playing the long game (even though it seemingly makes no sense to some).

When Toyota started making hybrids they rolled them out in considerable numbers in a few markets, tested and stabilised the engineering, then rolled them out across the world in huge numbers. They've tinkered with hydrogen cars for 30 years in niche ways, without ever expanding their production. You see this two things as somehow equivalent?

[nctnico]

You may think that but remember your reaction is similar to those of many when Toyota introduced their hybrid technology. Technology that has not made it necessary for Toyota to sell BEVs in the EU in order to meet average CO2 limits for cars sold. Appearantly they foresaw and planned this decades ahead of time. To me it is crystal clear that Toyota is executing a carefully planned long term strategy which includes several escapes (like selling BEVs in markets where there is demand). But they also seem to understand very well that BEVs aren't a universal answer. To me it is very reasonable to assume their hydrogen strategy is playing the long game (even though it seemingly makes no sense to some).

When Toyota started making hybrids they rolled them out in considerable numbers in a few markets, tested and stabilised the engineering, then rolled them out across the world in huge numbers. They've tinkered with hydrogen cars for 30 years in niche ways, without ever expanding their production. You see this two things as somehow equivalent?

Well, hybrids on fossil fuels use infrastructure that already exists so that requires no adaptation of existing fueling infrastructure. As others pointed out: it is not a question if hydrogen will be used widely but when. All the signs that hydrogen will be used as an energy transport and storage medium on a large scale are becoming clearer and larger in numbers.

[coppice]

You may think that but remember your reaction is similar to those of many when Toyota introduced their hybrid technology. Technology that has not made it necessary for Toyota to sell BEVs in the EU in order to meet average CO2 limits for cars sold. Appearantly they foresaw and planned this decades ahead of time. To me it is crystal clear that Toyota is executing a carefully planned long term strategy which includes several escapes (like selling BEVs in markets where there is demand). But they also seem to understand very well that BEVs aren't a universal answer. To me it is very reasonable to assume their hydrogen strategy is playing the long game (even though it seemingly makes no sense to some).

When Toyota started making hybrids they rolled them out in considerable numbers in a few markets, tested and stabilised the engineering, then rolled them out across the world in huge numbers. They've tinkered with hydrogen cars for 30 years in niche ways, without ever expanding their production. You see this two things as somehow equivalent?

Well, hybrids on fossil fuels use infrastructure that already exists so that requires no adaptation of existing fueling infrastructure. As others pointed out: it is not a question if hydrogen will be used widely but when. All the signs that hydrogen will be used as an energy transport and storage medium on a large scale are becoming clearer and larger in numbers.

It is certainly a question of if, and most of us see hydrogen going nowhere. Where are these signs becoming clear?

[nctnico]

Perhaps follow the news a bit. Hydrogen infrastructure is being build across Europe and countries are making deals left & right to secure delivery of hydrogen. Random google find: https://atalayar.com/en/content/second-handshake-between-italy-and-algeria-green-hydrogen-and-3000-more-cubic-metres-gas Saying hydrogen is going nowhere is denying reality.

[coppice]

Perhaps follow the news a bit. Hydrogen infrastructure is being build across Europe and countries are making deals left & right to secure delivery of hydrogen. Random google find: https://atalayar.com/en/content/second-handshake-between-italy-and-algeria-green-hydrogen-and-3000-more-cubic-metres-gas Saying hydrogen is going nowhere is denying reality.

I see deals being announced over tiny amounts of hydrogen. I see talk about infrastructure. Pilot/tinkering schemes are ten a penny. Where's the real commitment? Maybe read beyond the headlines.

[Marco]

Just last month a Billion subsidy in Germany to get a Direct Reduced steel up and running at Salzgitter, with nearly a billion to match from the company. Drop in the pond, but not chump change.

PV and electrolysis have the highest technological readiness, no need to prioritize it when the consumers and storage are still in development.

[Kleinstein]

They start building the units to produce hydrogen from excess electricty, though still not enough of them. That part should be more like the no brainer as long as there is excess electricity at times and demand for the hydrogen.
There is already now a quite large consumption of hydrogen in the chemical industry - it would be a big leap forward if at least that hydrogen would be made from renewable electricty and not from natural gas (or even coal). AFAIK for Germany all the currently installed renewable electricity would be about enough for the hydrogen demand. So quite some potential use for excess power. That part would only need the electrolysis part and a little storage - not yet any additional usage for hydrogen, e.g. with ships or trains or steel, though some is used with oil refineries.
The nice point is that the electrolysis could be distributed to also help the grid - chances are it is fast to build than new high power transmission lines.

An important point that is sometimes missed is that there is not one technology to solve all the problems. There will defenitely be a mix off different ways to store and transport energy. For the shorter term storrage (e.g. 1 cycle per day) batteries of some kind clearly outperform hydrogen. On the long time scale (1-2 cycles per year) batteries are essentially hopeless and hydrogen is the main hope besides pumpe hydroelectric storage, that is good where available, but limited. Synthetic fuels usually also start with hydrogen as a main part.
It is reasonable clear that hydrogen production from electricity will be significant - for the additional consumptions there are still some uncertainties, but chances are there will be some extra, just not clear how much.

[coppice]

There is already now a quite large consumption of hydrogen in the chemical industry

Yep. Just supplying things like the Haber process from electrically sourced hydrogen should come before we start using hydrogen as a mainstream fuel.

[uer166]

Saying hydrogen is going nowhere is denying reality.

Here are some news about molten salt EV batteries: https://thedriven.io/2021/02/03/new-salt-based-battery-could-revolutionise-electric-cars/.
To deny that we'll see molten salt EV batteries that are kept at 600C continuous is to deny reality, there are plenty of prototypes and plans to incorporate them into the energy mix.

.
.
.

Do you see how ridiculous that argument sounds? I'm not sure what it is with some people's Hydrogen fetish, but to deny that it's a niche item that will see very limited deployment, is the actual denial of reality. Toyota was going nowhere with H2 cars many years back, and it's still going nowhere now. It should be obvious to any engineer or savvy policy-maker that, while H2 does have it's uses, the cost, complexity, system energy density, infrastructure; fundamentally lag far behind other tech such as lithium batteries. It's absolutely a question of if, when it comes to large scale H2 deployment for stuff like transportation. It's a giant leaky expensive pain in the ass as SLS found out.

[KaneTW]

Once societies are really going serious with alternative energy ("if" is probably not the question, it's rather a "when"), they will need to build up enough capacity for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun is not shining. Consequently, these capacities will become significant overcapacities when they are.

People just need to actually embrace nuclear instead of being afraid of nothing. That way you don't need to build enough capacity.

That being said, hydrogen as a replacement for high-energy fuel (i.e. gas) is probably a good idea-- petroleum products should be used for petrochemistry, not burning.

[nctnico]

Perhaps follow the news a bit. Hydrogen infrastructure is being build across Europe and countries are making deals left & right to secure delivery of hydrogen. Random google find: https://atalayar.com/en/content/second-handshake-between-italy-and-algeria-green-hydrogen-and-3000-more-cubic-metres-gas Saying hydrogen is going nowhere is denying reality.

I see deals being announced over tiny amounts of hydrogen. I see talk about infrastructure. Pilot/tinkering schemes are ten a penny. Where's the real commitment? Maybe read beyond the headlines.

What is not making the headlines is that the (typically state owned) companies that deal with a country's natural gas infrastructure have been upgrading the piping and hardware to transport hydrogen for a long time. In the NL there are already pilot projects up & running where regular homes are receiving hydrogen instead of natural gas.

[coppice]

People just need to actually embrace nuclear instead of being afraid of nothing.

I'm very pro-nuclear, but I'm not sure hugging a uranium rod is the best idea.

[KaneTW]

People just need to actually embrace nuclear instead of being afraid of nothing.

I'm very pro-nuclear, but I'm not sure hugging a uranium rod is the best idea.

U is generally very inactive, so not much would happen. A kg of uranium-238 has a radioactive power of around 8 microwatt.

[nctnico]

People just need to actually embrace nuclear instead of being afraid of nothing.

I'm very pro-nuclear, but I'm not sure hugging a uranium rod is the best idea.

U is generally very inactive, so not much would happen. A kg of uranium-238 has a radioactive power of around 8 microwatt.

IMHO the main problem of spent Uranium and elements that result from the nuclear reaction is that all of these are very toxic heavy metals.  The radiation falls down to manageable levels in 100 to 200 years but the toxicity remains indefinitely. OTOH that is true for many materials. For example: asbestos which is just buried in sealed bags to get rid of it.

[Marco]

that it's a niche item that will see very limited deployment

Steel industry is pretty much guarantueed to go hydrogen given the level of investment in Sweden and Germany. That's a huge niche, which could easily pull other industries which need high instantaneous heat with it rather than them going electrical which will be a much larger re-engineering effort.

Long haul trucking has a high chance of going hydrogen given the breadth of industry involvement, it is in fact synthetic fuel which is the pipe dream with pretty much no investment comparatively.  The only realistic competitor is ultra fast charging, simply carried by EV momentum. Stuffing multiple megawatts into the trucks at the charging station.

All the talk about the areas where decent alternatives are avaliable such as small cars are silly. There are huge areas where all the options are expensive, these are not small niches, and hydrogen clearly has major investment.

[Siwastaja]

We will probably see some kind of hydrogen economy (and, more generally, power-to-X) because massive amounts of excess electricity is reality in 10-20 years. It kinda already is. Efficiency does not matter when the alternative is to waste the resource completely. Cost of investment for such low duty cycle operation is all that matters. This does not mean cars will be moved by hydrogen.

[NiHaoMike]

We will probably see some kind of hydrogen economy (and, more generally, power-to-X) because massive amounts of excess electricity is reality in 10-20 years. It kinda already is. Efficiency does not matter when the alternative is to waste the resource completely. Cost of investment for such low duty cycle operation is all that matters.

The cheapest would be automated load management to run large loads more when there's plenty of excess, followed by thermal storage for HVAC, hot water, and refrigeration. The easiest way to make it happen is to just pass through the savings to the customer and let economics decide how it would get used.

[Kleinstein]

An intelligent load management can work for larger, usually industrial loads. For the smaller household items there is quite some overhead and stand by power to control a relatively small load. Even the washing machine is often just running a few times per week. Thermal storage with a heat pump needs extra temperature reserve and this costs COP. The control is also tricky, as it is not so easy to predict how much cooling is needed the next day.  With a few exceptions thermal storage is still more something for the short time scale of a few days at most. Hydrogen is more something for the long term, like a few months and especially summer to winter for those who need heating - so not much direct competition there.

[Siwastaja]

The cheapest would be automated load management to run large loads more when there's plenty of excess, followed by thermal storage for HVAC, hot water, and refrigeration. The easiest way to make it happen is to just pass through the savings to the customer and let economics decide how it would get used.

As discussed before, this is important, and it's partially a low-hanging fruit, but this is also coming. Actually trying to get a related product on consumer market, EMC qualifications next week or so. And we are not, by far, the only ones making this happen, welcome all competitors.

But even then, there will still be significant excess in electricity, storage of which will be looked into no matter how crappy efficiency one gets, as long it's a net positive endeavor.

[bonelli]

Here in France, some regions have water restriction during summer. This year, almost all regions have been concerned and in most cases it was the highest level of warning. Some cities experienced water shortage. The groundwater are never fully refilled during winter. It was the case in the past, it is no longer the case.

On the other hand, electricity price rise and availability fall.

Really, some (big) cities experienced NO potable water for some days and power outage for some hours. Welcome to the past. According to all scientists, this is only the beginning of what serious people are talking since tenth of years.

When thinking about "H2 energy", I'm thinking about 2 things
- H2 in not energy. H2 is only a container, like a battery. Consuming 1% of its energy each day to keep itself at the good internal pressure and temperature.
- I don't see any serious sustainable way to easily produce H2 in industrial quantities in the current and future world.

I'm working in the greater (and maybe greatest) public research lab of my country. Some teams are working on H2 since 20+ years. There are still using [demineralized] water to avoid all kind of problems. And this is for small quantities at high price.

There is still some dream-sellers that preach the feasibility of low cost H2 generated with green electrons and see water with no or low CO2 emissions. This is just a joke.

[nctnico]

There is still some dream-sellers that preach the feasibility of low cost H2 generated with green electrons and see water with no or low CO2 emissions. This is just a joke.

Please write a letter to Shell telling them that they are idiots for building the biggest  (for now) hydrogen electrolysis plant in Europe. And hurry, they already started building it because they want it operational by 2025!

It seems to me your co-workers are not the real experts here where it comes to mass production. And likely their goals are entirely different as well; maybe looking for purity or examining the process. Not trying to produce large quantities. I have worked for a research institute as well a long time ago and this was more like a talent incubator. People that excelled in their field got scooped up by companies that paid way better.

[Marco]

There are still using [demineralized] water to avoid all kind of problems.

So do window washers, they go through huge quantities at negligible cost. Even desalinated RO water is dirt cheap, fresh water RO costs bugger all.

[bonelli]

Please write a letter to Shell telling them that they are idiots for building the biggest  (for now) hydrogen electrolysis plant in Europe.

I was talking about sustainability. Shell as never been concerned by environment.

A quick googling of the project don't help to know what kind of water they plan to use. This is surprising !

Apparently they will use something based on the "20 MW alkaline water electrolysis module" (from Thyssen). According to the Thyssen documents, this module is using demineralized water.

During this time, UN warns about the actual impact of SWRO. If the project was really neutral, every article on the project should explains how they manage the water sourcing, and what they do with the extracted salt, because technically this is the first technical difficulty.

[nctnico]

Shell's plant is sitting next to a river exit. Plenty of fresh water available so they don't even bother mentioning it. Likely they'll simply feed the plant with drinking water which is already very clean.

[SiliconWizard]

This looks like a rather industry funded study.  To me this looks it may actually get attractive - otherwise there would be little need to spend money on biases studies to stop it.

While not an evidence per se, you make a good point. Industry wouldn't fund studies that it has nothing to gain from. Public institutions may - assuming they are not heavily lobbied, which is becoming a severe problem.

Hydrogen is one way of storing potential energy and while it requires a lot of energy to be "extracted", it is at least doable. It could be a way of solving the conundrum that most "renewable energies" (solar, wind...) are intermittent. And it has the potential of being much better storage than current batteries, which are pretty shitty overall.

But it's certainly not a relevant strategy for the short term.

Now, nothing about energy (and even less so, climate) should be managed short-term. This is the main culprit here. Hydrogen is not the problem. Politics is.

[Marco]

Given the economic life of a lot of infrastructure and vehicles, net zero is nearly here. That's why hydrogen is a relevant strategy short term.

[james_s]

We will probably see some kind of hydrogen economy (and, more generally, power-to-X) because massive amounts of excess electricity is reality in 10-20 years. It kinda already is. Efficiency does not matter when the alternative is to waste the resource completely. Cost of investment for such low duty cycle operation is all that matters. This does not mean cars will be moved by hydrogen.

I don't see massive amounts of excess energy happening. If supplies grow then prices will drop and efficiency will take a back seat to lower cost products the way it used to be, and people won't bother making any effort to conserve energy. Like money, the human appetite for energy is virtually infinite.

[Kleinstein]

In Europe / Germany we are at the point that on a Windy, sunny day there is excess power, as Wind and PV can provide 100% and more of the needs. At times the exchange price turns negative and quite some PV and wind turbines are shut down.  A similar thing can also happen more locally as especially the wind power is quite concentrated and the grid can't ddistribute all the power all the time.  With increasing installed power there will be more of it and thus more often excess power available.  The build up of storrage capacity is relatively slow and batteries are more like short term (1-3 days) only. They will be full quite fast with a few good days.

There are still times when the PV / wind supply is not sufficient and energy from battery will stay expensive, even if the energy needed for charging is essentially free. A problem is that the grid storage batteries will only get a rather limited number of cycles. So you can divide by some 5000 cycles theoretical cell life, but more like 50-100 cycle per year and maybe a 5 year life. So even if there is plenty of PV / wind the electricity would still not be that cheap as a part would have to go through storage and quite some would be excess.  PV can't count on 5 cent /kWh power all time, but more like < 2 cents when there is plenty and to compensate maybe 20 cents in times when the power is low. So far we don't have cheap storrage and the storrage has to live from the difference. So expect quite some difference between day and night / summer and winter. I would more like expect the prices to go up quite a bit for the consumers - chances are energy just gets more expensive if there is no longer cheap gas, coal or oil.

[coppice]

In Europe / Germany we are at the point that on a Windy, sunny day there is excess power, as Wind and PV can provide 100% and more of the needs. At times the exchange price turns negative and quite some PV and wind turbines are shut down.

This shows how piecemeal and unprepared for net zero European politics really is (the rest of the world is no better). Letting renewable generation get ahead of demand, without the timely introduction of some of early, mature technology, systems clearly needed in the long term, to make effective use of that energy, is utterly broken. Its all window dressing for short term political gain. Only 20% to 25% of the consumed energy is consumed as electricity right now. Its time some of that other 75% to 80% began to be addressed, at least as pilot schemes to refine the best approaches. A key problem is democracy with 4 or 5 year cycles, and setting goals that are 28 years away (net zero 2050) are just not compatible.

[mfro]

In Europe / Germany we are at the point that on a Windy, sunny day there is excess power, as Wind and PV can provide 100% and more of the needs. At times the exchange price turns negative and quite some PV and wind turbines are shut down.

This shows how piecemeal and unprepared for net zero European politics really is (the rest of the world is no better). Letting renewable generation get ahead of demand, without the timely introduction of some of the early systems clearly needed in the long term, to make effective use of that energy, is utterly broken. Its all window dressing for short term political gain.

Strange attitude, IMHO. If you can't have everything beneficial together at once, you don't want anything of it at all?

When the automobile was invented, Bertha Benz rode it through Germany step by step from one pharmacy to the next for fuel.
If she would have refused to start until filling stations would have been widely available, we'd probably still ride coaches.

[coppice]

In Europe / Germany we are at the point that on a Windy, sunny day there is excess power, as Wind and PV can provide 100% and more of the needs. At times the exchange price turns negative and quite some PV and wind turbines are shut down.

This shows how piecemeal and unprepared for net zero European politics really is (the rest of the world is no better). Letting renewable generation get ahead of demand, without the timely introduction of some of the early systems clearly needed in the long term, to make effective use of that energy, is utterly broken. Its all window dressing for short term political gain.

Strange attitude, IMHO. If you can't have everything beneficial together at once, you don't want anything of it at all?

When the automobile was invented, Bertha Benz rode it through Germany step by step from one pharmacy to the next for fuel.
If she would have refused to start until filling stations would have been widely available, we'd probably still ride coaches.

Either carbon net zero by 2050 is an unnecessary goal, or there should be far more happening than there is. Which is it? With current actions carbon emissions will be much greater in 2050 than they are today,

[james_s]

Either carbon net zero by 2050 is an unnecessary goal, or there should be far more happening than there is. Which is it? With current actions carbon emissions will be much greater in 2050 than they are today,

This is something that has always bothered me too. From what I have read, even the most pie in the sky optimistic moon shot efforts at reducing emissions still does not prevent potentially catastrophic warming, we are a century too late to change the trajectory. It seems to me that we might be better off trying to mitigate the effects and find ways to live with the changing climate than going to great lengths to prevent it when it is already too late. I hope that I'm wrong but I am not optimistic. There is just no practical way to make these kind of enormous changes in just a few short decades.

[nctnico]

In Europe / Germany we are at the point that on a Windy, sunny day there is excess power, as Wind and PV can provide 100% and more of the needs. At times the exchange price turns negative and quite some PV and wind turbines are shut down.

This shows how piecemeal and unprepared for net zero European politics really is (the rest of the world is no better). Letting renewable generation get ahead of demand, without the timely introduction of some of early, mature technology, systems clearly needed in the long term, to make effective use of that energy, is utterly broken.

It is work in progress but the real problem is that there is no bottom up approach due to many chicken & egg situations. Tesla had to invest heavily in charging infrastructure to get some traction.

Its all window dressing for short term political gain. Only 20% to 25% of the consumed energy is consumed as electricity right now. Its time some of that other 75% to 80% began to be addressed, at least as pilot schemes to refine the best approaches.

The Shell hydrogen plant I mentioned earlier is intended to provide hydrogen for chemical processes and for use in their fuel refinery in order to reduce the CO2 footprint of petrol and diesel fuels. The Tata steel plant in the NL is also a big potential customer for hydrogen.

Either carbon net zero by 2050 is an unnecessary goal, or there should be far more happening than there is. Which is it? With current actions carbon emissions will be much greater in 2050 than they are today,

This is something that has always bothered me too. From what I have read, even the most pie in the sky optimistic moon shot efforts at reducing emissions still does not prevent potentially catastrophic warming, we are a century too late to change the trajectory. It seems to me that we might be better off trying to mitigate the effects and find ways to live with the changing climate than going to great lengths to prevent it when it is already too late. I hope that I'm wrong but I am not optimistic. There is just no practical way to make these kind of enormous changes in just a few short decades.

My long standing opinion is along these lines but with the addition that fossil fuels will run out at some point so switching to renewables is needed either way. Though it would not surprise me when it turns out humanity will use every last drop of oil & gas. The earth will keep on spinning and the human race has survived worse.

[james_s]

Fossil fuels will never completely run out, they will gradually get more scarce and harder to get, and that will naturally and gradually force people to use alternatives. A shift away from fossil fuels will probably take around a century to do so without catastrophic disruption. Trying to pivot in just a decade or so is not going to work well.

[coppice]

Fossil fuels will never completely run out, they will gradually get more scarce and harder to get, and that will naturally and gradually force people to use alternatives. A shift away from fossil fuels will probably take around a century to do so without catastrophic disruption. Trying to pivot in just a decade or so is not going to work well.

Fossil fuel production will only taper to a limited extent. As extraction gets harder, the energy needed to extract a fossil fuel at some point exceeds the energy content of what is extracted. Then its a losing game to extract more for fuel. It might still be extracted as industrial feedstock.

[langwadt]

Fossil fuels will never completely run out, they will gradually get more scarce and harder to get, and that will naturally and gradually force people to use alternatives. A shift away from fossil fuels will probably take around a century to do so without catastrophic disruption. Trying to pivot in just a decade or so is not going to work well.

everyone that is worried about the environment should be happy about the current energy prices, that is the only thing that will drive any change.

But it seems to me a lot of those that used to complain about politicians not doing enough to save the environment, is now complaining about politicians not fixing the energy prices. Guess it is more fun to be green when "someone else" has to pay

[james_s]

everyone that is worried about the environment should be happy about the current energy prices, that is the only thing that will drive any change.

But it seems to me a lot of those that used to complain about politicians not doing enough to save the environment, is now complaining about politicians not fixing the energy prices. Guess it is more fun to be green when "someone else" has to pay

The problem is not so much the change but the rate of change. When prices increase gradually it spurs development of alternatives, but those alternatives take time to mature. When prices go up by triple digit percentages in the space of a few months it hurts.

[coppice]

everyone that is worried about the environment should be happy about the current energy prices, that is the only thing that will drive any change.

Historically, high energy price have focussed people on getting their energy costs down by any means. The oil shocks in the early 70s really helped those who were innovative, like the Japanese car industry, who produced a lot of pretty nice small fuel efficient cars. They stimulated some economies, like Japan, massively reliant on energy sources largely outside their control, to diversify sources and regain some measure of control. Overall, however, they depressed economy activity, and reduced the money available for developing and implementing radical solutions.

[james_s]

Historically, high energy price have focussed people on getting their energy costs down by any means. The oil shocks in the early 70s really helped those who were innovative, like the Japanese car industry, who produced a lot of pretty nice small fuel efficient cars. They stimulated some economies, like Japan, massively reliant on energy sources largely outside their control, to diversify sources and regain some measure of control. Overall, however, they depressed economy activity, and reduced the money available for developing and implementing radical solutions.

I'd love to see a return of the small, simple lightweight Japanese cars of the early 80s, unfortunately modern safety mandates make that impossible. Vehicles are getting larger, taller and heavier all the time when they should be getting smaller and lighter. When the road is filled with enormous behemoths normal size cars become deathtraps.

[mfro]

Fossil fuels will never completely run out, they will gradually get more scarce and harder to get, and that will naturally and gradually force people to use alternatives. A shift away from fossil fuels will probably take around a century to do so without catastrophic disruption. Trying to pivot in just a decade or so is not going to work well.

everyone that is worried about the environment should be happy about the current energy prices, that is the only thing that will drive any change.

But it seems to me a lot of those that used to complain about politicians not doing enough to save the environment, is now complaining about politicians not fixing the energy prices. Guess it is more fun to be green when "someone else" has to pay

+1, that nails it.
People come up with lots of smart ideas what others should urgently do. When it comes to the impact of such ideas, we still just too often see that "not in my yard" attitude. Not intelligence and understanding, but cost will be the main driving force, unfortunately.

[langwadt]

everyone that is worried about the environment should be happy about the current energy prices, that is the only thing that will drive any change.

Historically, high energy price have focussed people on getting their energy costs down by any means. The oil shocks in the early 70s really helped those who were innovative, like the Japanese car industry, who produced a lot of pretty nice small fuel efficient cars. They stimulated some economies, like Japan, massively reliant on energy sources largely outside their control, to diversify sources and regain some measure of control. Overall, however, they depressed economy activity, and reduced the money available for developing and implementing radical solutions.

but if energy is cheap there is no reason or incentive to develop or implement radical solutions

[Kleinstein]

Fossil fuels will never completely run out, they will gradually get more scarce and harder to get, and that will naturally and gradually force people to use alternatives. A shift away from fossil fuels will probably take around a century to do so without catastrophic disruption. Trying to pivot in just a decade or so is not going to work well.

The supply will taper out slowly, but the other side is the waste CO2. Because of the climate effect we have to stop using the fossile fuel before we run out. That is the hard part to explain to the less educated polpulation. This requires giving up on some of our easy living to preserve a acceptable environment for future generations. Because it is unpolular politcs tends to promiss future reductions instead of doing this now.

It is kind of unavoidable to largely strongly (e.g. 95%) reduce the fossile fuel use in the future and this likely would mean rather high taxes on it, so it is only used for the few exception (e.g. some special chemistry, maybe space flights) that are willing to pay very high prices (e.g. $10 per kg). For the climate it makes litte difference if we avoid CO2 today or in 20 years. So from the logic it would make sense to have rather high prices allready now and not use oil / coal now for things that are reasonably easy to avoid ( e.g. to produce electricity).
It gets much easier if we get a 50% reduction now and than in 30 Year still use 10% instead of <5%.  So we really should start with the reduction now, even if this means some disruptions, like getting the air traffic level back to the levels at the peak of the pandemic or even lower. The current prices for oil and gas are still a bit low, when it comes to climate protection.  Not acting now is calling for much bigger problems in the future.
Climate protection can not wait till 2030, maybe till 20:30 would be OK, but that is about it.

[iMo]

I wonder what will be the energy sources like in the year, say, 2523..

[coppice]

everyone that is worried about the environment should be happy about the current energy prices, that is the only thing that will drive any change.

Historically, high energy price have focussed people on getting their energy costs down by any means. The oil shocks in the early 70s really helped those who were innovative, like the Japanese car industry, who produced a lot of pretty nice small fuel efficient cars. They stimulated some economies, like Japan, massively reliant on energy sources largely outside their control, to diversify sources and regain some measure of control. Overall, however, they depressed economy activity, and reduced the money available for developing and implementing radical solutions.

but if energy is cheap there is no reason or incentive to develop or implement radical solutions

So cheap energy means people do nothing, and expensive energy means people are too broke to do anything. I guess we are truly screwed.

[coppice]

I wonder what will be the energy sources like in the year, say, 2523..

You mean the log fires the cave men will be using?

[NiHaoMike]

So cheap energy means people do nothing, and expensive energy means people are too broke to do anything. I guess we are truly screwed.

Make fossil energy pricing "progressive", so it's cheap for those who conserve and expensive for those who use a lot. One example could be that purchases of gasoline or diesel over 10 gallons within a 4 hour period would be subject to heavy taxes, with commercial vehicles exempted.

[coppice]

So cheap energy means people do nothing, and expensive energy means people are too broke to do anything. I guess we are truly screwed.

Make fossil energy pricing "progressive", so it's cheap for those who conserve and expensive for those who use a lot. One example could be that purchases of gasoline or diesel over 10 gallons within a 4 hour period would be subject to heavy taxes, with commercial vehicles exempted.

The only people who frequently refuel at 4 hour intervals are commercial drivers. Most private users only make a few trips like that each year.

[iMo]

I wonder what will be the energy sources like in the year, say, 2523..

You mean the log fires the cave men will be using?

The original Mad Max, which was released in 1979, opens with the caption, “A few years from now.” That, and a piece of graffiti on a road sign dated December 1984, puts the events of the first film squarely in the mid-80s, most likely 1985.

[james_s]

The supply will taper out slowly, but the other side is the waste CO2. Because of the climate effect we have to stop using the fossile fuel before we run out.

Why? The damage has already been done, as I mentioned earlier the most optimistic scenarios are not enough to stop the climate change, so why bother? If we want to prevent climate change we need to stop using fossil fuels ~100 years ago which is obviously a challenge. I think we are better off trying to mitigate the effects at this point since we can't stop it.

[langwadt]

So cheap energy means people do nothing, and expensive energy means people are too broke to do anything. I guess we are truly screwed.

Make fossil energy pricing "progressive", so it's cheap for those who conserve and expensive for those who use a lot. One example could be that purchases of gasoline or diesel over 10 gallons within a 4 hour period would be subject to heavy taxes, with commercial vehicles exempted.

sure, if the purpose is to find new and inventive ways to avoid paying the tax

[Kleinstein]

The supply will taper out slowly, but the other side is the waste CO2. Because of the climate effect we have to stop using the fossile fuel before we run out.

Why? The damage has already been done, as I mentioned earlier the most optimistic scenarios are not enough to stop the climate change, so why bother? If we want to prevent climate change we need to stop using fossil fuels ~100 years ago which is obviously a challenge. I think we are better off trying to mitigate the effects at this point since we can't stop it.

Damage to the climate has already been done, but the projections are that it can get a lot worse if we don't stop very soon.  Most species can tolerate a little higher temperature than they are ideally adapted to, but it gets increasingly more tricky if it gets much hotter. So 1.5 C warmer is way worse then 1 C warmer.  There is also a limited speed the species (especially plants) can move to higher ground or more to the poles. So a fast increase is especially bad.
A 2nd point is that CO2 is slowly removed by increased plant growth, but this beneficial effect tends to saturate. So the effecitive half life of CO2 in the atmosphere gets longer if the concentration is higher.
The 3rd problem is that with the permafrost ground there can be positive fedback if much of that melts. It is a bit unclear and we hope it is not yet too late. So the problem may be that while the first 300 ppm of extra CO2 we may end up 2 C warmer, the next 300 ppm may end up 10 C hotter - so the slope from CO2 to temperature can change due to tipping points. This is despite the otherwise more log effect from absorption that makes the direct effect in the atmosphere smaller if there is already quite a bit. The feedback part is not all clear, but there is the danger that this may happen and we should stay on the safe side and not gamble with the worlds future. Even the original 2 K target may be dangerous close to tipping points, and thus ideally going for even lower emissions.

If we would stop CO2 emissions immediately there would still be some climate change, but at a limited level. We are currently at some +1.3 K and from the transfer to the ocean and with no more emissions to effect would even go down relatively fast initially, maybe even below 1 K. So the damage already done is more like the part many species can absorb  (though not all). What comes on top is what is the real problem. So it is not yet too late and it is a gradual effect, so less is better and chances are the higher the CO2 level aready is the more negative the effect of future emisions will be.

There is not very much we can do to mitigate the climate effects - building higher dams is tricky with a projected rise in see level of some 5-10 meters in the long run. Using even more AC is only making things worse for the rest of the world. The calulations give higher cost for adopting to the higher temperatures than avoiding them by not burning the coal. Add the costs for adoption to the oil price and we may end up in the $500/barrel range. So ideally we should act (or add corresponding taxes) as if the oil price is that high.

[james_s]

Well we're going to have to figure something out, because the massive changes you want are not going to happen. Even if we were somehow able to completely stop fossil fuel use in the USA and Europe places like China, India and other developing nations are still rapidly growing their use. Fossil fuels are going to be used until they become scarce and other sources become more economical, that is a given, we can make great sacrifices to our quality of life and other places will simply pick up the slack.

[nctnico]

Add the costs for adoption to the oil price and we may end up in the $500/barrel range. So ideally we should act (or add corresponding taxes) as if the oil price is that high.

Taxation isn't going to work. This has been tried in the Netherlands for decades and it doesn't help to achieve anything (except for driving up inflation). The only thing that really helps are alternatives that are cheaper to use (*) compared to fossil fuel.

* And by this I mean exactly what I wrote: 'to use' but AFTER the initial investment in new production and infrastructure has been made. Hydrogen has a high potential to fullfill this requirement.

[Marco]

It was never tried, it was just an income suppression tax aimed at middle and lower class. A podunk nation doesn't have the level of autarky to implement any real energy policy through taxation, large companies were mostly exempt.

[NiHaoMike]

The only people who frequently refuel at 4 hour intervals are commercial drivers. Most private users only make a few trips like that each year.

Even a one off purchase of more than 10 gallons would get taxed, the 4 hour period (if somehow implemented) would prevent working around by splitting it into two purchases a short time apart.

[james_s]

The only people who frequently refuel at 4 hour intervals are commercial drivers. Most private users only make a few trips like that each year.

Even a one off purchase of more than 10 gallons would get taxed, the 4 hour period (if somehow implemented) would prevent working around by splitting it into two purchases a short time apart.

So put in 10 gallons every day, that's waaaay more fuel that I use in my gas guzzler. All that's going to do is result in more driving as people take multiple trips to get fuel.

[NiHaoMike]

So put in 10 gallons every day, that's waaaay more fuel that I use in my gas guzzler. All that's going to do is result in more driving as people take multiple trips to get fuel.

The inconvenience factor would push everyone to drive more efficient cars.

[JPortici]

So put in 10 gallons every day, that's waaaay more fuel that I use in my gas guzzler. All that's going to do is result in more driving as people take multiple trips to get fuel.

The inconvenience factor would push everyone to drive more efficient cars.

or simply stop when you go to the groceries, or wherever else.
I pass by three gas stations on my daily route. it takes five minutes more (refueling included) if i don't want to go to those and go to other three. I live in the countryside.
Increasing taxes or expenses to the users without having first provided alternatives will get you nowhere. Everybody will get around the new tax and will lose faith in what you propose next

Also, people can't afford the cars they need already or would buy better/safer ones. Instead they keep the oldest/cheapest gas guzzler they can and change it only if they get toaled

[james_s]

The inconvenience factor would push everyone to drive more efficient cars.

You could limit it to a gallon a day and I'd still keep the car I have. It would be inconvenient but not change cars level of inconvenient. I'd also want to spite whoever thought it was a good idea to try to make my life inconvenient.

[coppice]

So put in 10 gallons every day, that's waaaay more fuel that I use in my gas guzzler. All that's going to do is result in more driving as people take multiple trips to get fuel.

The inconvenience factor would push everyone to drive more efficient cars.

To effect change you need to inconvenience huge numbers, not the tiny minority who hit a set of rather arbitrary conditions you have created.

[Marco]

So cheap energy means people do nothing, and expensive energy means people are too broke to do anything. I guess we are truly screwed.

It's just a question of resource allocation. People had to give up a lot of luxury to fight the World War, very large resource allocations away from conspicuous consumption towards electricity/hydrogen production are possible from a technocratic point of view.

The politics are a problem, not just the peons but also the globalists ... perhaps even mostly the globalists. You're welcome to destroy your economy for the environment, but woe on to you if you try to force it on others with trade barriers, that's not allowed. Unless the EU is willing to go full Trump, the carbon border adjustment mechanism will die and all those fancy H2 steel plants being planned will die due to needing to compete with good old coke using plants. I don't think they have the balls to go full Trump.

[coppice]

So cheap energy means people do nothing, and expensive energy means people are too broke to do anything. I guess we are truly screwed.

It's just a question of resource allocation. People had to give up a lot of luxury to fight the World War, very large resource allocations away from conspicuous consumption towards electricity/hydrogen production are possible from a technocratic point of view.

The politics are a problem, not just the peons but also the globalists ... perhaps even mostly the globalists. You're welcome to destroy your economy for the environment, but woe on to you if you try to force it on others with trade barriers, that's not allowed. Unless the EU is willing to go full Trump, the carbon border adjustment mechanism will die and all those fancy H2 steel plants being planned will die due to needing to compete with good old coke using plants. I don't think they have the balls to go full Trump.

Are you advocating a global dictatorship?

[Marco]

The EU and the US between them already have the economic power to dictate global policy. TPTB were never comfortable with fickle democratic populists having the reign over such powers though. So they used globalism to put chains on them. I'm advocating for them to throw off the chains. On the one hand it will be a hard pill to swallow for the world for the US and EU to ram through change while it protects their internal industry which is most capable of the massive innovation and change necessary, on the other who else is going to do it?

At least to solve the energy transition. Beyond that the world needs more equitable redistribution of wealth, solve demographic problems both in overpopulation and demographic collapse in the most technologically progressive cultures and solve the problem of the fundamental opposition of religion vs communism vs modern liberalism vs freedom. For that a global dictatorship by a benevolent AI is probably the best we can hope for.

[james_s]

The EU and the US between them already have the economic power to dictate global policy. TPTB were never comfortable with fickle democratic populists having the reign over such powers though. So they used globalism to put chains on them. I'm advocating for them to throw off the chains. On the one hand it will be a hard pill to swallow for the world for the US and EU to ram through change while it protects their internal industry which is most capable of the massive innovation and change necessary, on the other who else is going to do it?

At least to solve the energy transition. Beyond that the world needs more equitable redistribution of wealth, solve demographic problems both in overpopulation and demographic collapse in the most technologically progressive cultures and solve the problem of the fundamental opposition of religion vs communism vs modern liberalism vs freedom. For that a global dictatorship by a benevolent AI is probably the best we can hope for.

I think in the USA at least any leader trying to actually do that would be seen as a tyrant and in all likelihood it would start a war.

[Njk]

A global problem shall be attacked globally. Don't worry, the enabling technology is already available. Let's ask Elon Mask to save the planet by using his low-cost satellite flotilla to drop a cassettes packed with condoms on every populated place in the world. Use condom, receive payment. For the taxpayers, it'll be actually a bargain because "the cost of wearing the uniform is high". Some folks will be infuriated, but I think no government will resort to start nuclear war because of the condom dropping.

---
WBR

[f4eru]

It does not work that way, unfortunately.
1) you cannot drop packages from satellites
2) Elon Musk is pro population increase, while human overpopulation is already  an ecological disaster...

[TimFox]

It does not work that way, unfortunately.
1) you cannot drop packages from satellites
2) Elon Musk is pro population increase, while human overpopulation is already  an ecological disaster...

Perhaps Elon Musk cannot drop packages from satellites, but the American "Corona" spy satellite program certainly did.
Film containers were dropped, deployed parachutes, and were picked up by aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite)

[Njk]

BTW the concept was technically proven in 1992. Very big package. That time, the US government refused to permit dropping it on the US soil directly, so the compromise agreement was reached to splash it in the ocean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Flight_Europe-America_500

---
WBR

[james_s]

Even if condoms are free and widely available the challenge is getting people to use them. In reality they are fairly expensive, and using them really takes a lot of the joy out of the experience. Fortunately there are a handful of other effective options when the goal is to prevent reproduction and I am in full support of making all of those methods as accessible as possible and encouraging anything that reduces breeding. For some strange reason the US tax system actually encourages reproduction, there are various child tax credits. I've always thought a progressively higher child tax would make a lot more sense. If someone really wants kids, let them, but we should not be encouraging people to have kids.

[Zero999]

Even if condoms are free and widely available the challenge is getting people to use them. In reality they are fairly expensive, and using them really takes a lot of the joy out of the experience. Fortunately there are a handful of other effective options when the goal is to prevent reproduction and I am in full support of making all of those methods as accessible as possible and encouraging anything that reduces breeding. For some strange reason the US tax system actually encourages reproduction, there are various child tax credits. I've always thought a progressively higher child tax would make a lot more sense. If someone really wants kids, let them, but we should not be encouraging people to have kids.

What makes you think the US tax system is encouraging reproduction? It's obviously doing a bad job, because the birth rate is below the replacement rate. They really should aim to increase it to the point when the population is constant, otherwise it's unsustainable.

I suppose overpopulation in the world is partly America's fault, along with most of Europe. The parts of the world where the population is growing, only manage to do this, thanks to technology invented by the US and Europe: modern medicine, sanitation and agriculture.

[nctnico]

Yup. When all people have access to internet & Netflix they don't have time to copulate.

[Marco]

Nah, in a world with cheap contraception marriage age/rate is the key and education is the main driver that pushes those. I don't think the stars which aligned for the western world to push us out of (neo-)Malthusian population control and into demographic collapse, will align the same for the rest of the world.

How long can the west maintain Burundi/Haiti/Bangladesh type states? We will find out. I suspect the results will not be pretty, but they will be blamed on climate change and north-western Europe will go down the slaughter as the easiest to reach and temporarily most hospitable destination for the "climate" refugees.

The future looks bleak, I like talking about climate change because it's relatively easy to fix compared to other upcoming civilisational roadblocks (very hard beats defacto impossible).

[tszaboo]

I suppose overpopulation in the world is partly America's fault, along with most of Europe. The parts of the world where the population is growing, only manage to do this, thanks to technology invented by the US and Europe: modern medicine, sanitation and agriculture.

There isn't an overpopulation problem. All reliable projections show that population will likely top below 10B, and then it will decline. It's a sustainable number. If we want to contain the issue all we have to do is build schools and universities, and encourage woman in third world countries to go to them. And we are doing that.
Remember all the talk about the Ozone layer back in the 90s and 2000s? That was an engineering problem and we successfully fixed that. All these doomsday scenarios that the media is hyping are mostly engineering problems. The hype is somewhat needed so that the average Joe thinks about it, and buys an electric car instead of a SUV.
What is needed that we focus on the solutions that have the largest impact from the least amount of investment, because there is just not enough money to piss it away on solar roadways. I don't think that hydrogen storage energy policy is bad. In fact it's one of the better options. I just think that there are even better alternatives.

[Marco]

All reliable projections show that population will likely top below 10B, and then it will decline. It's a sustainable number. If we want to contain the issue all we have to do is build schools and universities, and encourage woman in third world countries to go to them. And we are doing that.

Doesn't mean it has to happen in time, or their economy will actually offer any opportunities for all that education.

The Asian tigers pulled themselves up through both an educated population and low wage labour at the same time, in a vastly different environment. They generally had more political stability than the densely populated nations still at the lower development end right now too. Arguably they also had better genetic aptitude on average (ohh Bayesian genetic essentialism, the worst kind).

I think the only way to make people stay put in Africa and the poor parts of Asia is vast wealth redistribution, otherwise migration and political/cultural destabilisation in Europe are just going to snowball (Europe not always being the migration destination of choice, but certainly the easiest to get into). Also the poaching of all the young people of especially Eastern Europe by Northern-Western Europe is unsustainable.

In world run by a technocratic dictator with absolute power all is an engineering problem, but in this world it isn't. Humans suck.

[Zero999]

All reliable projections show that population will likely top below 10B, and then it will decline. It's a sustainable number. If we want to contain the issue all we have to do is build schools and universities, and encourage woman in third world countries to go to them. And we are doing that.

Doesn't mean it has to happen in time, or their economy will actually offer any opportunities for all that education.

The Asian tigers pulled themselves up through both an educated population and low wage labour at the same time, in a vastly different environment. They generally had more political stability than the densely populated nations still at the lower development end right now too. Arguably they also had better genetic aptitude on average (ohh Bayesian genetic essentialism, the worst kind).

I think the only way to make people stay put in Africa and the poor parts of Asia is vast wealth redistribution, otherwise migration and political/cultural destabilisation in Europe are just going to snowball (Europe not always being the migration destination of choice, but certainly the easiest to get into). Also the poaching of all the young people of especially Eastern Europe by Northern-Western Europe is unsustainable.

In world run by a technocratic dictator with absolute power all is an engineering problem, but in this world it isn't. Humans suck.

It's not just the population growth, but enabling everyone to have a similar living standard, to those living in developed countries is a problem. It would require more resources then there currently are, never mind the required CO₂ emissions.

[tszaboo]

The majority of the population should ideally be living on the farm and homesteading because that is simply the best way to do things.

No thx.

[nctnico]

Homesteaders heavily rely on what is being made in cities.

[Kleinstein]

Living on a homestead needs lots of room. this may work in Australia, but in many countries there is just enough space or too much population for this.
With modern computer based working quite some people could more from a city to more rural areas or the other way, but this does not really solve the problems. When done right living in city is more effective.

When living in a modern city one could in principle live without a private car - most can be done with public transport and if really needed for a few case there are rentals. This gets tricky in rural areas.
It is not about getting more electric cars, but more about less cars overall. For the electric cars it is also about making them smaller and cheaper this way.
The conclusion may still be that a private car is expensive and maybe not worth it in a city.
Not having a private car may be a big step for some. Just not having the car can safe quite some money to be used for occasional "expensive" rides with taxi.
The increased fuel costs are still relatively low - there is still way to much consumption. So expect them to go up even more. The times of cheap fuel hopefully will not come back.

[Marco]

Homesteading is not subsistence living, it's just a rich man's hobby. Having a subset of your food grow on your own farm doesn't suddenly make you sustainable, to build that farm and your home in the middle of nowhere you already spend more than a lifetime of consumption of a poor person. City's and industrial scale farming are highly efficient on a per calorie scale even with long distance transport, you're not going to compete.

Given that you are rich you might even be able to stock enough economic output from the real economy to do it comfortably without input from that real economy for decades or more (till you need advanced medical attention) but homesteading alone is a terrible form of prepping, you need a compound with friends to have effective raider defence in a collapse situation.

[f4eru]

- You can find a physical limitation for just about any plan to avoid disaster
-  Everyone wants electric cars right?
- Well the electricity grid won't support that.
- And it takes at least a decade to build nuclear power plants

All four statements are plain wrong.
That is not a plan.
That is an empty narrative, disconnected from any facts.