The opening speaker had me when his first statement was about hydrogen being an energy transportation system not an energy source. God bless engineers!!!
What a shame that Fiona rather then focusing on what Nigel and Barry had to say she was reading stuff on her screen. Obviously not a very committed participant. Her views that Hydrogen is not a silver bullet are sensible. But certainly her thoughts are clearly against fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are necessary during the transition to a cleaner world. One needs to accept this basic fact in the debate. There is no point demonizing fossil fuels. I realise this is not politically correct but certainly a reality.
Fiona's point about the opportunistic fossil fuel industries and politicians is spot on! You can 100% see how hydrogen could be heralded as a saviour but is really just more lobbying by industry. But Green Hydrogen definitely sounds like a good solution to some difficult problems.
So, how many angels DO dance on the had of a Pin? Interesting debate, but misses the point. We must reduce demand whatever the source of our energy. (Chris Meggs)
@EarthSage Katrin two birds, one stone. Teaching or demonstrating consumption reduction will not only save the planet, but also reduce the environmental impact society is attacking our mental health. Win,win!
Oh, we must, must we...ain't gonna happen...period. If you think you can change human nature, you're a fool. The human race will continue to increase in population, faster and faster...until something happens to kill off masses of people. No mandate or law can change that. Your pie in the sky ideas are of use only as a plot device for fiction. If you really want to improve conditions, learn critical thinking, then use those skills to figure something out. Until you learn critical thinking, you're of little use in solving the world's problems.
Well it adds security to an otherwise unsecure forms of energy, most notable solar and wind during peaks. the loss is quite high at around 30 % conversion. And there are other mediums of storage, namely batteries, but their storage capacity, especially over time and total capacity is quite low, it would be one thing if the cars could connect directly into the grid and charge only or mainly during the peaks to saturate the grid ( with like a 10 % electricity discount ) and then feedback during the low hours into the grid, from let's say charging stations outside peoples offices and homes to feedback, with an app or so that could determine to opt in to charge only during the discounted hours and feedback only to a certain point ( enough to get to work and then some). But as society is heavily lacking this infrastructure and the people actually driving the cars aswell as the extreme demand on lithium and other rare earth minerals to build said batteries and cars ( conversion to fully electric society probably 50 +years the electrolysis can add direct energy security to the grid instantly and you can just add on more solar panels everywhere. So yeah, it allows society to fully adapt to solar much faster than the other optimal scenario for energy security when using solar but the loss of energy is not insignificant either. MEH / 10 Coulda been doing this ages ago, wonder why nobody ever thought about it 🤡honk honk
Is it about reducing carbon? Or persecuting people who are involved in the fossil fuel industry? The third speaker is a mostly moral based objections and ranks solutions on how they fit with her morals.
If you are not talking about the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative plans for fossil hydrogen with CCS combined with biomass as a feedstock, you are missing the point.
I don't agree with premise that we NEED to get to Net Zero. Therefore, the whole argument about hydrogen and other renewables is moot. Anthropogenic CO2 is NOT the ONLY driver of earth's temps. PERIOD.
A lot of hot air - the future vehicles will all be fully electric - and fully digital(1). Nothing analog and/or with any form of combustion in the vehicle will survive. And wind, solar and atomic will be the only sources for the grid surviving as well. Crude oil is dead today already. Just like coal for heating your house and office buildings. 1 - the additional benefits for the future fully digial integrated society go way beyong 'just having an energy source onboard driving the wheels'. The fully electric car wheel drive fully autonomous - you don't need to look outside anymore - but your car streams netflix and whatever pron you want. Tomorrows cars will cost twice as much per month (the sky being the limit) but just half of todays costs will be for electricity/driving forward. 'Gentlemen enter your smartphones'. And may all services always be with you. (CIA and FBI always know where everyone is 24/7/365 - and the police pulls the plug electricly on the speeder - and them bankrobbers. It's not about a different fuel, stupid.)
You had two experienced engineers, and then a left wing activist. Just goes to show that a degree in English Literature doesn't translate into any technical insight (even with 18 years of experience writing about it). Fiona Harvey was so far out of her depth, all she did was take time away from the people worth listening to.
Much of resistance to hydrogen is coming from people who could not even do a 2 year degree and gave up after high school. She atleast has some chops when it comes to understanding a paragraph
@@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220 I agree that there is no harm in keeping perspective about people's motives... but disinterested parties are less likely to have the deep technical knowledge required of this conversation. Perhaps a highly technical engineer or scientist from another field might be useful to ask the right questions of the experts, rather than providing their own less informed point of view.
The opening speaker had me when his first statement was about hydrogen being an energy transportation system not an energy source. God bless engineers!!!
Fiona was criminally under-appreciated in this debate.
What a shame that Fiona rather then focusing on what Nigel and Barry had to say she was reading stuff on her screen. Obviously not a very committed participant.
Her views that Hydrogen is not a silver bullet are sensible. But certainly her thoughts are clearly against fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are necessary during the transition to a cleaner world. One needs to accept this basic fact in the debate. There is no point demonizing fossil fuels. I realise this is not politically correct but certainly a reality.
Fiona's point about the opportunistic fossil fuel industries and politicians is spot on! You can 100% see how hydrogen could be heralded as a saviour but is really just more lobbying by industry. But Green Hydrogen definitely sounds like a good solution to some difficult problems.
He FINALLY gets on with it after a LONG protracted preamble at 3:15 folks
So, how many angels DO dance on the had of a Pin? Interesting debate, but misses the point. We must reduce demand whatever the source of our energy. (Chris Meggs)
It’s a global problem and reducing energy use is not going to happen.
@EarthSage Katrin two birds, one stone. Teaching or demonstrating consumption reduction will not only save the planet, but also reduce the environmental impact society is attacking our mental health. Win,win!
Oh, we must, must we...ain't gonna happen...period. If you think you can change human nature, you're a fool. The human race will continue to increase in population, faster and faster...until something happens to kill off masses of people. No mandate or law can change that. Your pie in the sky ideas are of use only as a plot device for fiction.
If you really want to improve conditions, learn critical thinking, then use those skills to figure something out. Until you learn critical thinking, you're of little use in solving the world's problems.
Well it adds security to an otherwise unsecure forms of energy, most notable solar and wind during peaks. the loss is quite high at around 30 % conversion.
And there are other mediums of storage, namely batteries, but their storage capacity, especially over time and total capacity is quite low, it would be one thing if the cars could connect directly into the grid and charge only or mainly during the peaks to saturate the grid ( with like a 10 % electricity discount ) and then feedback during the low hours into the grid, from let's say charging stations outside peoples offices and homes to feedback, with an app or so that could determine to opt in to charge only during the discounted hours and feedback only to a certain point ( enough to get to work and then some).
But as society is heavily lacking this infrastructure and the people actually driving the cars aswell as the extreme demand on lithium and other rare earth minerals to build said batteries and cars ( conversion to fully electric society probably 50 +years the electrolysis can add direct energy security to the grid instantly and you can just add on more solar panels everywhere.
So yeah, it allows society to fully adapt to solar much faster than the other optimal scenario for energy security when using solar but the loss of energy is not insignificant either.
MEH / 10
Coulda been doing this ages ago, wonder why nobody ever thought about it 🤡honk honk
Terpenes. You can grow the fuel. US Navy is already researching and implementing.
Is it about reducing carbon? Or persecuting people who are involved in the fossil fuel industry?
The third speaker is a mostly moral based objections and ranks solutions on how they fit with her morals.
I thibk it can also solve crisis of energy in west from russian sanction
If you are not talking about the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative plans for fossil hydrogen with CCS combined with biomass as a feedstock, you are missing the point.
....................................AM????????
Quite a disappointing discussion.
I don't agree with premise that we NEED to get to Net Zero. Therefore, the whole argument about hydrogen and other renewables is moot. Anthropogenic CO2 is NOT the ONLY driver of earth's temps. PERIOD.
Don’t confuse them with facts. That’s why they attack messengers and not ideas or facts. They have none of their own.
Ideally we'd build some giant ass inland seas in Sahara desert to make some nice rain forests and agricultural lands in that area.
Nigel - we can indeed find natural hydrogen
@@kevinfletcher1999underground. Large pockets of it occur naturally. France and parts of Africa drilling for it now (early 2024). Okay ?
Hyperogen
A lot of hot air - the future vehicles will all be fully electric - and fully digital(1). Nothing analog and/or with any form of combustion in the vehicle will survive. And wind, solar and atomic will be the only sources for the grid surviving as well. Crude oil is dead today already. Just like coal for heating your house and office buildings.
1 - the additional benefits for the future fully digial integrated society go way beyong 'just having an energy source onboard driving the wheels'. The fully electric car wheel drive fully autonomous - you don't need to look outside anymore - but your car streams netflix and whatever pron you want. Tomorrows cars will cost twice as much per month (the sky being the limit) but just half of todays costs will be for electricity/driving forward. 'Gentlemen enter your smartphones'. And may all services always be with you.
(CIA and FBI always know where everyone is 24/7/365 - and the police pulls the plug electricly on the speeder - and them bankrobbers. It's not about a different fuel, stupid.)
Say goodbye to air travel, shipping, and modern consumerism. /nuclear power could work but you try convincing the Luddites that nuclear is safe.
You really are disconnected from reality, good grammar and spelling. 😂😂
You had two experienced engineers, and then a left wing activist. Just goes to show that a degree in English Literature doesn't translate into any technical insight (even with 18 years of experience writing about it). Fiona Harvey was so far out of her depth, all she did was take time away from the people worth listening to.
Much of resistance to hydrogen is coming from people who could not even do a 2 year degree and gave up after high school. She atleast has some chops when it comes to understanding a paragraph
@@lavaphone8227 If you say so.
Experts are in the h2 spuking game.. maybe listen to some who are likely disinterested..
Hc insider on ytube, Paul Martin, chem eng...thermodynamic limitations of h2
@@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220 I agree that there is no harm in keeping perspective about people's motives... but disinterested parties are less likely to have the deep technical knowledge required of this conversation. Perhaps a highly technical engineer or scientist from another field might be useful to ask the right questions of the experts, rather than providing their own less informed point of view.