We are hearing a lot about Hydrogen as an alternate fuel to oil. Could this be like the diesel car fiasco, where greenies pushed a change to diesel to replace petrol, only to decide a decade later that it was worse than the petrol it was replacing. Nothing new here, greenies only wake up to the unintended consequences of their bright ideas after the damage is done.

One thing they push is that the only thing coming out the exhaust of a hydrogen powered car is water vapor. They want to replace the minor greenhouse gas of CO2 with this much more potent water vapor.

But hang about as minute, as stated water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. According to "THE SCIENCE" if you want to reduce global warming you need to reduce CO2, so why the hell would you want to replace it with a much more efficient global warmer in the form of water vapor?

How much tax payer money will we waste developing hydrogen as a fuel, before some new greenie will discover hydrogen is worse than CO2 could ever be? Of course the project will be great for the Labor mates harvesting subsidies, but will be another huge black hole for the long suffering tax payer.

From what I've read, heard and watched, hydrogen is a dead duck. Sounds good, but .... Twiggy Forrest is making noises about it, but it could very well be his second big idea on energy to go down. He can afford to buggerise around with fantasy projects. The rest of us just want cheaper energy that actually does work all the time like, say coal.

From memory Liquid Hydrogen has a similar energy density per volume or mass to Lithium batteries- but much lower than Hydrocarbons- and 100,000x less than nuclear. Also it takes a lot of energy to convert atmospheric Hydrogen to Liquid Hydrogen. There is an experimental technology that converts CO2 to Hydrocarbons using a Heat Reactor operating at about 800 degrees Celcius- but it isn't grid ready. Perhaps Hydrogen could be used in limited applications- they could sell Hydrogen solutions in the open market- but what a lot of these green companies want is government money and mandates- free money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_chemical_reactions_(oxidation)

Energy released by chemical reactions (oxidation) Material Specific energy (MJ/kg) Energy density (MJ/L)
Hydrogen, liquid 141.86 (HHV) 119.93 (LHV) 10.044 (HHV) 8.491 (LHV)
Hydrogen, gas (681 atm, 69 MPa, 25 °C) 141.86 (HHV) 119.93 (LHV) 5.323 (HHV) 4.500 (LHV)
Hydrogen, gas (1 atm or 101.3 kPa, 25 °C) 141.86 (HHV) 119.93 (LHV) 0.01188 (HHV) 0.01005 (LHV)
Methane (101.3 kPa, 15 °C) 55.6 0.0378
LNG (NG at −160 °C) 53.6[19] 22.2
Natural gas 53.6[19] 0.0364
LPG propane 49.6 25.3
LPG butane 49.1 27.7
Polypropylene plastic 46.4[21] 41.7
Gasoline (petrol) 46.4 34.2
Residential heating oil 46.2 37.3
Diesel fuel 45.6 38.6
Gasohol E10 (10% ethanol 90% gasoline by volume) 43.54 33.18
Lithium 43.1 23
Jet fuel (e.g. kerosene) 43[23][24][25] 35
Biodiesel oil (vegetable oil) 42.2 33
Paraffin wax 42[27] 37.8
Body fat 38 35
Gasohol E85 (85% ethanol 15% gasoline by volume) 33.1 25.65[citation needed]
Coal, anthracite 26–33 34–43
Coal, bituminous 24–35 26–49
Liquid ammonia (combusted to N2+H2O) 18.6 11.5
Wood 18
Sugars, carbohydrates, and protein 17 26.2 (dextrose)
Dry cow dung and camel dung 15.5[37]
Battery, lithium-air rechargeable 9.0[39]
Gunpowder 4.7–11.3[41] 5.9–12.9
Household waste 8.0[40]

Nuclear energy sources
The greatest energy source by far is matter itself. This energy, E = mc2, where m = ρV, ρ is the mass per unit volume, V is the volume of the mass itself and c is the speed of light. This energy, however, can be released only by the processes of nuclear fission (0.1%), nuclear fusion (1%), or the annihilation of some or all of the matter in the volume V by matter-antimatter collisions (100%).[citation needed] Nuclear reactions cannot be real the density of a neutron star would approximate the most dense system capable of matter-antimatter annihilation possible. A black hole, although denser than a neutron star, does not have an equivalent anti-particle form, but would offer the same 100% conversion rate of mass to energy in the form of Hawking radiation. In the case of relatively small black holes (smaller than astronomical objects) the power output would be tremendous.
The highest density sources of energy aside from antimatter are fusion and fission. Fusion includes energy from the sun which will be available for billions of years (in the form of sunlight) but so far (2021), sustained fusion power production continues to be elusive.
Power from fission of uranium and thorium in nuclear power plants will be available for many decades or even centuries because of the plentiful supply of the elements on earth,[85] though the full potential of this source can only be realized through breeder reactors, which are, apart from the BN-600 reactor, not yet used commercially.[86] Coal, gas, and petroleum are the current primary energy sources in the U.S.[87] but have a much lower energy density. Burning local biomass fuels supplies household energy needs (cooking fires, oil lamps, etc.) worldwide.

Bromine batteries look good as the oceans have a lot of bromine- but like Sulphuric Acid and Lead it's poisonous. Bromine has less energy density than Lithium but more than Lead Acid. There doesn't appear to be enough Lithium in the world to power all of the world's cars- so there appears to be a limit to the spread of Lithium technology. Perhaps this is a lefty ploy for wealth transfer for those able to afford Lithium powered vehicles and get jobs in the Lithium industry.

Ammonia seems to be a potential means of energy storage used in fuel cells- but there are significant barriers and risks to bringing new technology to market. But universities don't want to start businesses.

Perhaps you haven't noticed Canem Malum, that the elites have no intention of replacing the worlds current petroleum fueled vehicles with battery powered cars. The whole battery car thing is merely a step in removing personal mobility from peasants like us.

The World Economic Forum is getting a bit power happy & so over confident that they recently announced that even with battery cars, the world fleet must be reduced by 75% in order to save the world.

Make no mistake, they do not intend the peasantry to have anything more mobile than a bicycle in their 15 minute city they have planned for us, & that might be restricted to more favored citizens.

Hassy,

Didn't I catch you the other day out and about on your electric mobility scooter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfdqeoInyNI&t=13s

Well Hasbeen communism was always more totalitarian than capitalism- many communist countries restrict travel I suppose. Thanks for the information. Kudos.

Hi Paul,

According to the Internet - " China is the leading market
for electric cars and more were sold there las year than in
the rest of the world."

"Foreign automakers see an urgent need to gain a
foothold in China to develop the know-how and
manufacturing scale necessary to compete globally."
(17 Apr. 2023).

"Meanwhile, eco-friendly electric cars are gaining momentum
in Russia. According to the Ministery of Internal Affairs
23.4 thousand electric vehicles were registered in Russia.
Russia's EV to reach 10% of all cars built by the end of
2030."
(10 Feb. 2023).

Then there's the European bloc which has one of the
strongest electric car markets in the world
only second to China - which broke records in 2022.

Interesting.

CM

Speaking of Communists and curtailing travel, there is not much being said about this '15 minute minute cities' business yet. Some lunatics have come up with the idea that ALL we need should be available within a 15 minute walking distance. Just imagine the cost of ALL we need being provided/built 15 minutes walk from everyone.

These people are not just bad, they are ignoramuses.

Thanks ttbn.
15 minute cities seem to be based on the European model.
But American cities were designed around a different philosophy.

In a sense European towns were a destination perhaps but American towns were along a highway or railway.

In a sense I empathize with the 15 min model- but I don't believe it would work in our situation.

Either way my attitude is generally to leave people to govern themselves in the way that works for them so long as they don't interfere with the community next door. Systems won't work in all situations- but there is nothing wrong with letting others know about the success you have in your community based on your systems.

There is a global environment but I don't believe in globalism.

To change any system of infrastructure is a huge cost and risk- more so one that has lasted for one hundred years in this case longer. Sometimes it's just a ploy to force the community to buy more stuff- rather than produce more stuff. You can't buy if you don't produce- Nietzsche and Ayn Rand talk about this- it's "putting effect before cause". As Nietzsche says the Priestly Code of generosity can't exist without the Knightly Code of life giving productivity.

Often foreign diplomats and interlocutors will try and convince a marked nation to implement weak policies in order to exploit them.