Latest Breaking News

nmmi

(248 posts)

14. His background is in chemistry. He's in the pharmaceutical industry. His journal is worth a scroll

Fri Jan 3, 2025, 05:40 PM

Jan 3

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2025, 03:00 AM - Edit history (4)

Journal: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=119031

A recent post related to hydrogen and "so-called" renewables
A solar-hydrogen economy for U.S.A., (December 22)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127179284

which links to his massive magnus opus on hydrogen
A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127164320

On energy issues, he hates wind, solar, hydro, EV's, batteries, hydrogen. The only one he likes (and likes a lot): nuclear.

This thread has a lot of the why --
A Commentary on Failure, Delusion and Faith: Danish Data on Big Wind Turbines and Their Lifetimes.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548

From the thread, post#8 https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548#post8
citing Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620307522

and this from same thread https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548#post3
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

In short, in my words, the number who have died from nuclear energy production (as opposed to military use of course) is a tiny, almost infinitessimal fraction of the 8 million who die annually from air pollution -- most of which is from fossil-fuel air pollution. (And that solar and wind are dependent on fossil-fuel generation to cover their woefully low capacity factors (like 25-30%) and weather-dependent unreliablility; and that solar and wind may not even decrease fossil fuel consumption at all when considering the inefficiencies caused by the added startups and shutdowns and more frequent inefficient operating levels of the fossil-fueled generators in the system).

ETA - He has a number of people on Ignore, so that might be why he's not responded (as of the time of this posting) to some of the comments on the thread. It's not because he lacks for words.

ETA - He posts frequently in the Environment and Energy Group and the Science Group.

A son of his is in a nuclear engineering PhD program last I heard, so someone he can readily check out some nuclear questions with.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Owl rictofen

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Biden administration adds exemptions into new climate rules for hydrogen energy [View all] BumRushDaShow Jan 3 OP

By virtue of the second law of thermodyamics, hydrogen is an extremely dirty fuel. NNadir Jan 3 #1

It's also the most abundent element of the universe BumRushDaShow Jan 3 #2

Yes, but on earth it is chemically bound. Looking at it... NNadir Jan 3 #3

Hydrogen is not a "form of energy", it is an energy storage medium... Think. Again. Jan 3 #5

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe GoreWon2000 Jan 3 #8

Yes, we need to make some very big progress building out non-CO2 emitting electrical production. Think. Again. Jan 3 #10

Well... BumRushDaShow Jan 3 #6

Post removed Post removed Jan 3 #9

His background is in chemistry. He's in the pharmaceutical industry. His journal is worth a scroll nmmi Jan 3 #14

As explained in the article... Think. Again. Jan 3 #4

Except when it leaks NickB79 Jan 3 #11

Natural gas leaks are 28X as powerful as CO2.... Think. Again. Jan 3 #12

And hydrogen leaks twice as much as methane, by it's very nature as the smallest element NickB79 Jan 4 #17

A small mistake you made... Think. Again. Jan 4 #19

Green hydrogen is the future GoreWon2000 Jan 3 #7

When will the scam that is the "hydrogen economy" Miguelito Loveless Jan 3 #13

If you're Anti-Hydrogen, whatever you do - DO NOT LOOK AT CHINA or India Caribbeans Jan 4 #15

Simple math Miguelito Loveless Jan 4 #16

And then fuel cells lose about 40%-60% of the 34kWH in the H2 converting it into electricity? /nt nmmi Jan 4 #18

Which is still less than the energy lost by our current long distance delivery systems... Think. Again. Jan 4 #23

59% is losses in the power plant itself in converting the fuel's energy to electricity at the power plant and net of nmmi Jan 4 #24

Yes, the Hydrogen would not replace batteries... Think. Again. Jan 4 #25

The problem is Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #34

Correct, I personally believe only a Green H2 economy is worthy of pursuing.... Think. Again. Jan 5 #37

That doesn't alter the fact Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #44

Correct, directly powering your home from solar makes the most sense... Think. Again. Jan 5 #45

To me, marine and flight uses Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #51

Yes, and other uses where easily transportable fuel for combustion or on-site electric generation is needed. Think. Again. Jan 6 #54

The environmental impact for lithium-ion Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #31

Yes, and H2 can be used when weight and volume are considerations... Think. Again. Jan 5 #40

So far, Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #46

Yes, passenger vehicles are better for batteries... Think. Again. Jan 6 #49

My losses are much lower Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #29

Yes, no one is suggesting H2 should replace batteries, or any other form of energy storage. Think. Again. Jan 5 #33

But, in using H2 for power Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #39

Yes, and in situations where batteries are not viable due to weight or volume or non-existent power grid lines... Think. Again. Jan 5 #43

By very expensive tanker trucks Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #50

It doesn't make much sense does it madville Jan 4 #20

A loss of energy also occurs when it is transferred into batteries... Think. Again. Jan 4 #22

It must be stored either in liquid form Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #28

Hydrogen containment tanks are made of materials that are impervious to embrittlement.... Think. Again. Jan 5 #32

The tanks are Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #36

Yes, they can be. And older existing lines can even be coated to be impervious. Think. Again. Jan 5 #42

That means digging up old lines and replacing them Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #48

No, if the cost is 2 million, that's what it is, not more. Think. Again. Jan 6 #53

The issue is not flammability Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #38

Precisely. Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #27

Any transfer of energy results in a loss... Think. Again. Jan 4 #21

True, Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #26

Yes, but Lithium is not infinite nor renewable, while Hydrogen basically is.... Think. Again. Jan 5 #30

Lithium can be recycled from batteries Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #35

Yes, with additional energy costs. Think. Again. Jan 5 #41

The additional energy cost is far lower Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #47

The Hydrogen economy infrastructure would be a cost of doing business.... Think. Again. Jan 6 #52