Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(34,930 posts)
16. It's a very poor analogy that stuff about Meta etc.
Mon Dec 11, 2023, 08:45 AM
Dec 2023

While it is true that gasoline I'd far more dangerous than, say, nuclear power, and climate change is more dangerous than either, I would say that if anything is being flogged, it's soothsaying and magical thinking.

It is true that consumers chose gasoline over the requirement to clean up horse manure in the cities but the consequences are now well understood.

Given the state of the world, in particular the atmosphere, future generations, the generations we screwed with magical and often reactionary thinking may have other priorities than consumerism, survival for instance.

Of course hydrogen can be made from nuclear power. General Atomics was exploring the SI thermochemical cycle in the 1960s. It's 2023. Only one nuclear plant has piloted the SI cycle, the 10 MW(th) plant HTR-10 plant in China.

You have a very naive, in my opinion, on consumer choice. It's hardly driven by wisdom. It's driven by marketing. The very stupid discussion of hydrogen as a fuel is a marketing effort. It's being marketed here by fossil fuel interests in my view.

If anyone here works to endorse this wasteful scheme, this late in the game, in my view they are working to the detriment of humanity, not It's benefit.

You have also, I note, misconstrued, what I was saying about methane. My point was that the hydrogen industry destroys exergy of methane now, but they do so for a purpose, to make hydrogen for the production of important industrial chemicals, the most critical being ammonia on which our food supply depends. A methane, hydrogen to methane cycle would be unbelievably stupid, but if there's one thing about hydrogen fantasies, they clearly generate huge amounts of stupidity. Hydrogen production on this planet consumes about 20 Exajoules of energy to produce a gas with an energy content of slightly more than 10 Exajoules.

You know even an intellectually challenged fool like Joe Romm was able to see through the hydrogen scam, this about 20 years ago. Vast sums of money and resources are being squandered on hydrogen fantasies. To the extent these efforts in square pegs hammered into round holes are driven, the worse it will be for the future of humanity.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Kickin' Faux pas Jul 2023 #1
Hydrogen is made from ANY source of energy... Think. Again. Jul 2023 #2
Your title is a lie, according to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm Caribbeans Jul 2023 #3
No, my title is a true statement with references to the primary scientific literature, numbers... NNadir Jul 2023 #4
Not exactly... Think. Again. Jul 2023 #5
Present day production is not the same as 2050 production Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #9
The confusion of soothsaying with reality is why we're in this horrible mess. NNadir Dec 2023 #10
Because of issues like which infrastructure and consumer preferences, Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #11
It is obscene to make hydrogen for fuel purposes when fossil fuels dominate the energy supply. NNadir Dec 2023 #12
If we don't start finding out now what infrastructure works Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #13
Um, the Journal of Hydrogen Energy has been in continuous print since 1976, almost half a century. NNadir Dec 2023 #14
Yes, one can see problems, but nobody knows what choices will be chosen Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #15
It's a very poor analogy that stuff about Meta etc. NNadir Dec 2023 #16
You are very wrong to twist my words Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #17
Oh please... NNadir Dec 2023 #18
Nice strawman you got there. Nobody called you a communist Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #19
Updated to include link to the first referenced paper, and to make a minor cosmetic change. NNadir Jul 2023 #6
The intent of this post is to mislead... Think. Again. Jul 2023 #7
Another pretty chart... Think. Again. Jul 2023 #8
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»A Giant Climate Lie: Whe...»Reply #16