excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 24,718
- 49,146
- 2,290
When the government attempts to pick winners, you should expect bad results. When it is Biden, well, someone is getting rich off all of us.
Just dumb stuff piled on top of dumb stuff while spending a trillion or so dollars across all these programs.
nypost.com
Just dumb stuff piled on top of dumb stuff while spending a trillion or so dollars across all these programs.
...
In fact, as I show in my new Manhattan Institute report, manufacturing hydrogen requires at least twice as much energy as the hydrogen itself can provide, even before accounting for the energy lost when that hydrogen is subsequently used, such as in a fuel cell or burned in an industrial furnace.
That’s a thermodynamic fact, which no subsidy can change.
The Biden administration has chosen to invest billions of taxpayer dollars into manufacturing hydrogen via electrolysis.
Why?
Because electrolysis, which involves running an electric current through water to break apart hydrogen and oxygen molecules, yields zero carbon emissions.
This “green” end, it seems, justifies even economically absurd means.
As part of its green hydrogen efforts the administration launched an “Earthshot” program, which aims to reduce the cost of manufacturing green hydrogen through electrolysis by 80% by 2030 to just $1/kg.
The administration envisions using “surplus” wind and solar electricity – never defining what that means – in manufacturing plants that will produce millions of tons of zero-carbon hydrogen, which can then be used in industrial processes like steel and cement manufacturing, and thus move the country toward its net zero goal by 2050.
The problem here is that wind and solar power are inherently intermittent – the wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine.
Hence, operating a manufacturing plant only when there happens to be excess wind and solar generation would be neither practical nor cost-effective.
As for storing surplus wind and solar electricity in batteries and enabling plants to operate on a consistent schedule, my report shows the costs of the necessary storage alone could be as large as the cost of the manufacturing plants themselves, even if battery costs were cut in half.
No matter what process is used, Earthshot’s goal of manufacturing green hydrogen at a cost of no more than $1/kg is unrealistic.
The costs to build and maintain electrolysis plants, generate and transmit the electricity those plants require, and compress and store the hydrogen so it could be transported will far exceed $1/kg, even if electrolysis plant costs fall by 80%.
The tragedy in all of this is that the administration’s green hydrogen production goal — 10 million metric tons annually by 2030—would have no measurable impact on climate, even if it were achievable.
The resulting carbon reductions would be equivalent to two days of U.S. emissions in 2022 and less than six hours of world emissions.
In fact, as I show in my new Manhattan Institute report, manufacturing hydrogen requires at least twice as much energy as the hydrogen itself can provide, even before accounting for the energy lost when that hydrogen is subsequently used, such as in a fuel cell or burned in an industrial furnace.
That’s a thermodynamic fact, which no subsidy can change.
The Biden administration has chosen to invest billions of taxpayer dollars into manufacturing hydrogen via electrolysis.
Why?
Because electrolysis, which involves running an electric current through water to break apart hydrogen and oxygen molecules, yields zero carbon emissions.
This “green” end, it seems, justifies even economically absurd means.
As part of its green hydrogen efforts the administration launched an “Earthshot” program, which aims to reduce the cost of manufacturing green hydrogen through electrolysis by 80% by 2030 to just $1/kg.
The administration envisions using “surplus” wind and solar electricity – never defining what that means – in manufacturing plants that will produce millions of tons of zero-carbon hydrogen, which can then be used in industrial processes like steel and cement manufacturing, and thus move the country toward its net zero goal by 2050.
The problem here is that wind and solar power are inherently intermittent – the wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine.
Hence, operating a manufacturing plant only when there happens to be excess wind and solar generation would be neither practical nor cost-effective.
As for storing surplus wind and solar electricity in batteries and enabling plants to operate on a consistent schedule, my report shows the costs of the necessary storage alone could be as large as the cost of the manufacturing plants themselves, even if battery costs were cut in half.
No matter what process is used, Earthshot’s goal of manufacturing green hydrogen at a cost of no more than $1/kg is unrealistic.
The costs to build and maintain electrolysis plants, generate and transmit the electricity those plants require, and compress and store the hydrogen so it could be transported will far exceed $1/kg, even if electrolysis plant costs fall by 80%.
The tragedy in all of this is that the administration’s green hydrogen production goal — 10 million metric tons annually by 2030—would have no measurable impact on climate, even if it were achievable.
The resulting carbon reductions would be equivalent to two days of U.S. emissions in 2022 and less than six hours of world emissions.
Why green hydrogen is a lot of hot air
One of the central tenets of the Biden administration’s energy policy is the pursuit of “green” hydrogen, defined as hydrogen manufactured with zero carbon emissions. This push has involved $7 bill…
nypost.com
