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

Think. Again.

(19,099 posts)
9. I believe you're misrepresenting those "inconvenient facts"...
Sat Jan 27, 2024, 04:52 PM
Jan 2024

1. Since we have only just begun to consider Green H2 as a wide-scale commodity in the last few years, of course we have also only just begun to simply produce it wide-scale. There's no reason why that can't be done as needed.

2. The energy used to produce Green H2 doesn't matter any more than the energy that is used to produce gasoline from in-the-ground crude oil does. In both cases, it's all carried in the final cost of production which sets the selling price. And as you might know, there will be a loss of energy whenever any energy is transferred. Even charging an EV loses up to 25% of the energy you pay for from the charger (see: https://go-e.com/en/magazine/ev-charging-losses).

Also, most large Green H2 production plants are planned with their own dedicated Green Energy supply plants so no energy is being diverted from any other planned uses. All the energy is used to create the H2, it is not "wasted".

If the "simpler alternative" to H2 for transportation you are hinting at is to just continue burning fossil fuels, these old anti-green tropes won't convince anyone anymore.

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»I rode North America's Fi...»Reply #9