Last edited Tue Oct 31, 2023, 06:42 PM - Edit history (2)

once it is made, anyway.

Better to stick with solar, wind, geothermal, oceanic, and modular nuclear energy.

You’re worried about risks associated with Hydrogen!?

Last edited Tue Oct 31, 2023, 04:08 PM - Edit history (2)

...of nuclear energy is invited to show that in the 70 year history of commercial nuclear energy, it has killed as many people with radiation exposure as will die in the next six hours from air pollution, about 4500 people.

Note, only peer reviewed papers from the respectable primary scientific literature can be accepted as evidence.

No journalist tripe can be accepted.

What is "dangerous" is antinuke paranoia. It kills about 80 million people every decade, in the form of air pollution, not that antinukes give a rat's ass about fossil fuels, climate change, energy justice, sustainability, and health.

Portable nuclear energy has a history of about half a century, on spacecraft and ships. There is no evidence that it is as dangerous as climate change, some of which is the result of the appalling and deadly selective attention of poorly educated and poorly informed antinukes.

“Modular” nuclear reactors and hydrogen are different things though. A nuclear reactor is an energy source, while hydrogen is primarily thought of as an energy carrier (although if “White Hydrogen” pans out, maybe it’s an energy source as well. — Not counting on that though.)

Using nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen has been seen as a natural application for decades.

The way climate dynamics are coming at humans, one approach is to try everything -- that means everything, no capitalist suppression of geothermal projects, etc. -- and use whatever works wherever it works best through trial and error.

Earth is way different everywhere, so no one or two energy fixes would really address that, not to mention how many continents have different resources and building materials to create stable energy.

When it comes to climate, there is no one answer, and no one best energy source (except the sun, maybe).
Even if there were, we'd have to use other energy buildouts to buy time until humans could scale that answer across this planet.

We need to narrow things down a little bit, not so much that we’re looking for a “silver bullet” but, a “”Let’s try everything all at once” approach (IMHO) is not prudent. Each effort, approached seriously will require a commitment of time, resources, effort and money, and we do not have infinite supplies of any of these.

So, we need to narrow things down to a few promising candidates, and pursue them vigorously.

Anyone that claims to be "Green" ought to know what RMI is.

Hydrogen Reality Check #1: Hydrogen Is Not a Significant Warming Risk

May 9, 2022
By Thomas Koch blank, Raghav Muralidharan, Kaitlyn Ramirez, Alexandra Wall, Tessa Weiss

The Myth
Recent reports have suggested that large-scale production of hydrogen could do more harm than good in the effort to reduce global warming.

The Reality
The climate benefit from a well-regulated clean hydrogen economy outweighs the impact of any emissions that hydrogen would add to our energy system, especially if we prioritize hydrogen produced from renewables-powered electricity.

Realizing Hydrogen’s Potential
Hydrogen is a powerful tool for decarbonizing parts of the economy where electrification isn’t viable. It has the potential to reduce emissions by 11–13 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilogram used compared to fossil alternatives. In processes like steelmaking, it can deliver even greater emissions reductions (abating 25–30 kg CO2e per kg H2 used). By deploying hydrogen at scale, the United States could abate roughly 15 percent of its yearly carbon dioxide emissions.

The realization of this potential depends on producing, storing, transporting, and consuming hydrogen in a way that minimizes emissions at each step. Every choice made in the hydrogen supply chain will be crucial in determining the ultimate emissions benefit achieved.

In clean hydrogen production, this means ensuring regulators and producers actively address the carbon intensity of the power supply, upstream methane leakage, and carbon capture rates. In theory, both “blue” and “green” hydrogen — the most commonly considered production pathways — can achieve close to zero emissions. For green hydrogen (produced by splitting water molecules), it requires the use of renewable electricity to power the electrolyzers. For blue hydrogen (produced from natural gas), near-zero production pathways require carbon capture technologies that can achieve unprecedented capture performance, as well as the near elimination of upstream methane leakage from the supply of natural gas...more
https://rmi.org/hydrogen-reality-check-1-hydrogen-is-not-a-significant-warming-risk/

#1 problem with the "energy transition" right NOW?

Ignorance

So thank you for this information. I'd say, yes, ignorance is the problem. But it's not for lack of trying by many DU'ers here. It's been a collective effort to learn and understand what's become a fluid situation across the range of non-fossil energy projects and who all's funding and operationalizing them.

To your #1 problem I'd add inertia. It's a big country, big economy; it needs some smart people in the DoE and White House. The administration we have, that runs a 'whole of government' action plan, commits to a serious operationalizing an at scale 'energy transition' right now. There isn't a better administration out there, on any horizon, to develop short and long term systems that help mitigate climate crises that face us.

But again, here is the newest research, done a year after the report from Rocky Mountain you cited.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysis/hydrogen-is-a-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-than-previously-reported-new-study-reveals/2-1-1463495

Making hydrogen from dangerous natural gas destroys exergy. It's a law of physics and no amount of "rigorous oversight" can change that law of physics.

No matter how many times hydrogen stupidity is repeated, hydrogen remains a filthy fuel.

I calculated, from references from the primary scientific literature just how destructive hydrogen is in climatic terms, albeit in a somewhat technical way.

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.