Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, and rising.

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,794
Well at least Coal got a mention, even if watered down.

My favourite comments come from certain developing countries trying to claim a share of something that'll pollute the planet even more.

 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
43,139
Yeah, but it's very lucrative, so...
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,958
Like, but a bit confused:

What's this all about?

Electricity from solar panels and existing landfill gases will be fed into an electrolyser with water to make green hydrogen
Green hydrogen is created from water. So why the landfill gases? What role do they play?



Edit: Ah. It's blue hydrogen. Greenwashing. The landfill gas (methane) is being burned to create the electricity to perform the electrolysis. So it's using fossil fuels to make hydrogen.

Fucking pile of shit tbh. And the fact that the Beeb hasn't done basic due diligence and still calls it green makes me think "fuck it - if the Beeb isn't going to get news right, then fuck 'em off and let sky news or whoever tell tell the lies we hear"...
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
43,139
You need power for electrolysis. That's how energy works. Energy in > energy out. How else do you think they will create it?

Yes, some methane is going to be burned, along with solar sourced energy. As opposed to just going into the atmosphere. Methane is far worse for the atmosphere than the CO2 and H2O that is produced by burning it.

Unless you have another solution for land fill methane seepage?
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,958
You need power for electrolysis. That's how energy works. Energy in > energy out. How else do you think they will create it?
It's BLUE hydrogen.

If we're burning fossil fuels to make hydrogen it's not green hydrogen. Period. We need solar + battery storage if we're going to produce 24/7 - or we just produce hydrogen when the solar power provides the energy if we're going to call it Green.

If not - Blue. End of.

Don't know why you're pissed off about that.

Yes, some methane is going to be burned, along with solar sourced energy. As opposed to just going into the atmosphere. Methane is far worse for the atmosphere than the CO2 and H2O that is produced by burning it.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. And I completely agree. But it means this project is blue hydrogen.

Unless you have another solution for land fill methane seepage?
It's been a point of annoyance of mine for more than 30 years when I did landfill audits as a during experience for a chemical company, before going to university full of idealism for the environment. We're not very good at dealing with landill methane and we're not putting in the effort to come up with proper solutions (other than burning it - which we need to stop doing).

But then, honest question: After COP26 do you think that the human race has chosen to do much other than "business as usual"?


Either way. It's blue. Not green. And blue = "not good enough". If you come second in the league you still didn't win. And we have to win.

Edit: But I agree, mixing it into natural gas is better than leakage. (There are methods of removal that stop seepage - they're being used to collect it to burn) - but whilst better it's still a solution that burns fossil fuel...
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
43,139
The whole system is fucked. I just hope we hold on long enough for the kids to be in charge.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
43,139

View: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-60262733


100 mile range... OK for shunting, useless for distribution. Nice for marketing.

Was talking to a DHL chap yesterday, 60 mile range, loaded, on their local delivery vans. Also useless. Turn around is slower, costs actually go up (Vehicles off the road more)

EV is not the answer.
 

dysfunction

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,623

View: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-60262733


100 mile range... OK for shunting, useless for distribution. Nice for marketing.

Was talking to a DHL chap yesterday, 60 mile range, loaded, on their local delivery vans. Also useless. Turn around is slower, costs actually go up (Vehicles off the road more)

EV is not the answer.
No it's not but it appears to be the direction everything is going.
Unless you can get it charged as conveniently as filling up with petrol (not everyone can charge their car at home), it can be fully charged within 1-2 mins and it can last as long (or longer) as a tank of petrol.

If we can't get to that then we need green Hydrogen instead or some other tech.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,958
In that specific instance, an 18 mile journey done many times, it's a perfectly good answer.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,293

View: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-60262733


100 mile range... OK for shunting, useless for distribution. Nice for marketing.

Was talking to a DHL chap yesterday, 60 mile range, loaded, on their local delivery vans. Also useless. Turn around is slower, costs actually go up (Vehicles off the road more)

EV is not the answer.
I'm sure there's plenty of scenarios where they can be used.

Bit like the leccy busses that do very short routes.

Although because of covid all those round here have gone and have been replaced by planet destroyer double decker beasts.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,958
Would still make more sense than importing it until we can get off it tbh
Nope. It comes with a whole host of other environmental issues. If we have infrastructure in place and a safe delivery mechanism then we should leave it in the ground and use the infrastructure that is in place.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,732
Nope. It comes with a whole host of other environmental issues. If we have infrastructure in place and a safe delivery mechanism then we should leave it in the ground and use the infrastructure that is in place.
You think Russian extraction is done in a clean manner?
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,958
You think Russian extraction is done in a clean manner?
No fossil fuel extraction is done in a clean manner. But better to not fuck another ecosystem rather than continue to fuck one that's already fucked and wean ourselves off it.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,732
Biofuels are shit:

 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,958
Scientific co sensus has been that sin e I was at Uni :(
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,958
You fall for this shit from the Dems when Biden personally greenlit enough new oil and gas to almost single-handedly scupper global emissions targets but a few days after COP26?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom