Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Raven]

Yes, people keep going on about that, but that doesn't change the fact that what you hold is literally the result of converting pure energy into wealth. People may argue that they use green power, but that just doesn't hold any water. If people are using green power for this shit then we need dirty power for everything else.

I just find it incredibly hypocritical to go on at people about the environment when you clearly put personal gain ahead of it. We need to change, burning power for a commodity that has absolutely no practical use is not what we should be doing, in the same way we should be driving less and taking fewer flights (or not at all, ideally) etc

 

[Ormorof]

Terse arguments are not your strength Scouse, maybe add a TL:dr to the walls of text?

 

[Scouse]

Terse arguments are not your strength Scouse, maybe add a TL:dr to the walls of text?

When things aren't simple, don't be simple.

Problem with humans is they'd rather feel than think...

 

[Raven]

Sheffield 'green hydrogen' plant plan announced

The plans also include a hydrogen research centre in collaboration with the University of Sheffield.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Sheffield 'green hydrogen' plant plan announced

The plans also include a hydrogen research centre in collaboration with the University of Sheffield.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'd love to see the energy equation/accounting.

If they's splitting hydrogen out that's very energy intensive. They better not be using DRAX.

But, kind of they will be. If we start spinning up energy-intensive hydrogen enterprises it'll be longer before we're able to demise our fossil-fuel providers because we'll be pumping out shit to make hydrogen.

The only way they should be allowed to operate is when we spin down the dirty power first, or if they can self-power via solar or wind.

 

[Gwadien]

I'd love to see the energy equation/accounting.

If they's splitting hydrogen out that's very energy intensive. They better not be using DRAX.

But, kind of they will be. If we start spinning up energy-intensive hydrogen enterprises it'll be longer before we're able to demise our fossil-fuel providers because we'll be pumping out shit to make hydrogen.

The only way they should be allowed to operate is when we spin down the dirty power first, or if they can self-power via solar or wind.

Surely clever people have already worked this out?

What if we replace everything that can be replaced by hydrogen, is it worth it environmentally with current fossil fuel power usage?

 

[Raven]

Stick up a fuck ton of panels in the desert, create hydrogen. Use it to power the entire industry of moving shit about.

 

[Scouse]

What if we replace everything that can be replaced by hydrogen, is it worth it environmentally with current fossil fuel power usage?

Nope. Because the gains would be marginal, not transformative.

Green hydrogen *has* to be made with renewable (non-fossil) resources.

 

[Gwadien]

Nope. Because the gains would be marginal, not transformative.

Green hydrogen *has* to be made with renewable (non-fossil) resources.

Sure, but the one complaint about going green is that we don't have the infrastructure to support it, this is progress.

I absolutely support a new green deal where we build wind turbines all across Wales, but I don't think that's going to happen, we'll fuck our planet up, but people will wake up, eventually.

 

[Scouse]

Sure, but the one complaint about going green is that we don't have the infrastructure to support it, this is progress.

We've been able to make hydrogen for years. It's just energy expensive. If we make it using fossil fuels it's not progress.

We should be building wind turbines in the sea at a massively increased rate. It works, there's no problems with NIMBYism and we don't fuck up nature. If we're going to build hydrogen plants then we should put a turbine right next to it and coat the fucker in solar and have battery backup.

 

[Gwadien]

We've been able to make hydrogen for years. It's just energy expensive. If we make it using fossil fuels it's not progress.

We should be building wind turbines in the sea at a massively increased rate. It works, there's no problems with NIMBYism and we don't fuck up nature. If we're going to build hydrogen plants then we should put a turbine right next to it and coat the fucker in solar and have battery backup.

I think it'll take a fair few to achieve that, what we really need is more energy cooperation globally for a start, but we can't make progress because of our underlying desire to blow each other up.

 

[Raven]

Nope. Because the gains would be marginal, not transformative.

Green hydrogen *has* to be made with renewable (non-fossil) resources.

Numerous examples of green hydrogen coming online soon and in the future, and you're still whining about blue hydrogen.

They are not the same thing.

 

[Scouse]

Numerous examples of green hydrogen coming online soon and in the future, and you're still whining about blue hydrogen.

They are not the same thing.

I understand it completely. You forget it was my chosen degree subject. I was having conversations about blue and green hydrogen as energy sources 30+ years ago. And I'm making a point about so-called "green" hydrogen here.

Electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is energy intensive. We're supposed to use renewable resources to power it. But if we burn wood at DRAX - one of Europe's worst-polluting power stations - to provide the power it's hardly "green" is it?

I'm not coming at this shit from a lay member of the public's viewpoint Raven. I studied the subjects - and continued that study and kept up personal associations with people in the industry throughout my life. So I ain't in the habit of making n00b blue-green mistakes. I'm critiquing whether Tinsley Green Hydrogen will really be green.

I can also go into the environmental impact of their chosen site btw - I worked in Tinsley for five years and spent my lunchtimes jogging and mountain biking around there. And I specifically mentioned DRAX because if you drive up from J36 on the M1 where Tinsley is, you soon see that giant polluting carbuncle on the horizon.

 

[Gwadien]

So you don't support electric cars either?

 

[Scouse]

So you don't support electric cars either?

Why do you make such silly, nonsensical leaps?

For one - I fully support green hydrogen. I want it to be actually green, not "greenwashed" hydrogen.

A critique on a particular plant's green credentials isn't a statement saying "I'm against green hydrogen" ffs


For two. No. As I've stated before - it's way more efficient to burn fossil fuels in power stations to run our cars than burn fossil fuels in cars themselves. (But clearly, massively better to continue fossil fuel demise and power via renewables).

But answer me - why do you keep making these ridiculous logical leaps?

 

[Raven]

I understand it completely. You forget it was my chosen degree subject. I was having conversations about blue and green hydrogen as energy sources 30+ years ago. And I'm making a point about so-called "green" hydrogen here.

Electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is energy intensive. We're supposed to use renewable resources to power it. But if we burn wood at DRAX - one of Europe's worst-polluting power stations - to provide the power it's hardly "green" is it?

I'm not coming at this shit from a lay member of the public's viewpoint Raven. I studied the subjects - and continued that study and kept up personal associations with people in the industry throughout my life. So I ain't in the habit of making n00b blue-green mistakes. I'm critiquing whether Tinsley Green Hydrogen will really be green.

I can also go into the environmental impact of their chosen site btw - I worked in Tinsley for five years and spent my lunchtimes jogging and mountain biking around there. And I specifically mentioned DRAX because if you drive up from J36 on the M1 where Tinsley is, you soon see that giant polluting carbuncle on the horizon.

But we aren't talking about DRAX producing energy to produce hydrogen. We are talking about other methods of powering the electrolysis (globally, btw, not sure why you are hung up on 1 place in the UK) It is an answer to the question of what we can do to store renewable energy when it is not immediately needed. Carving up the seabed to mine the finite rare earth metals to make batteries is certainly not a long-term solution.

 

[Gwadien]

Why do you make such silly, nonsensical leaps?

For one - I fully support green hydrogen. I want it to be actually green, not "greenwashed" hydrogen.

A critique on a particular plant's green credentials isn't a statement saying "I'm against green hydrogen" ffs


For two. No. As I've stated before - it's way more efficient to burn fossil fuels in power stations to run our cars than burn fossil fuels in cars themselves. (But clearly, massively better to continue fossil fuel demise and power via renewables).

But answer me - why do you keep making these ridiculous logical leaps?

Because electric cars also use the same power source as making hydrogen?

 

[Scouse]

Because electric cars also use the same power source as making hydrogen?

Did you read the post? "Way more efficient".

And my very first post on Tinsley:

I'd love to see the energy equation/accounting.

If they's splitting hydrogen out that's very energy intensive. They better not be using DRAX.

Honestly. It's like people are incapable of following a thread around here sometimes

 

[Scouse]

Because nobody seems to believe me (everyone's a critic, eh?) - from the horses mouth:

Hydrogen Production: Electrolysis

Electrolysis is the process of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The reaction takes place in a unit called an electrolyzer.

www.energy.gov

"The source of the required electricity—including its cost and efficiency, as well as emissions resulting from electricity generation—must be considered when evaluating the benefits and economic viability of hydrogen production via electrolysis"

Happy now @Gwadien, @Raven?

 

[Raven]

You do realise that the new factory near Tinsley will be producing electrolysis equipment, not hydrogen itself, right?

You also appear to have "Disagreed" with the statement that green and blue hydrogen aren't the same thing. Are you sure you have studied the subject?

 

[Scouse]

You do realise that the new factory near Tinsley will be producing electrolysis equipment, not hydrogen itself, right?

You also appear to have "Disagreed" with the statement that green and blue hydrogen aren't the same thing. Are you sure you have studied the subject?

You've gone from reasonable person to angry man again Raven. Why is that? Chill dude.

I disagreed with your statement that I was talking about blue hydrogen - and that was made very clear in subsequent post.

 

[Raven]

I am not angry, I am not sure where you got that from. I was simply pointing out that you have got yourself in a muddle because for some reason you have a problem with all hydrogen, even when it is clearly green.

 

[Scouse]

you have got yourself in a muddle because for some reason you have a problem with all hydrogen, even when it is clearly green.

I explained that I have zero problem with green hydrogen, that the specific case we are talking about* may not be "clearly" green and it's you that's in the muddle.

But whatever.



**and with our shyster government - who will be all-in on blue hydrogen - we should keep an eye on "green" - because if it's produced by burning fossil fuels then it'll just be yet another round of bullshit.

 

[Raven]

You have had a pop at them for creating electrolysis equipment that will be shipped to where the green energy is created, be that the north sea, Australian desert or any other place in the world that there is an abundance of clean energy. This is the start of green hydrogen, that will eventually be used to power ships, trucks and plant machinery and will be a massive dent in humanities carbon production. It is infinitely more useful than heavy, dirty (from production) batteries.

Quite where you got DRAX from is anyone's guess.

 

[Gwadien]

View: https://twitter.com/GEddolls/status/1458366926938386438?t=r43qmo5bHz3L-LxebLP-CQ&s=19

 

[Scouse]

View: https://twitter.com/GEddolls/status/1458366926938386438?t=r43qmo5bHz3L-LxebLP-CQ&s=19

Love it.

Problem is, the biggest contingent in Cop26 are the fossil fuel lobby. Some entrenched within government negotiation teams. They don't give a fuck (neither do government) about peaceful protest or messaging. Not one bit. - and that's clear, because they don't give a fuck about actual science, which is delivered to them by their own scientists.

 

[Scouse]

COP failure.

We're heading for 2.4%, the democrat-lead US isn't pulling it's weight and we can't even fucking agree on how to measure the problem.

Cop26 targets too weak to stop disaster, say Paris agreement architects

Figueres, Tubiana and Fabius warn that leaders must improve plans next year if world is to stay within crucial 1.5C limit

www.theguardian.com

We don't make it.

 

[Scouse]

Apparently the newest draft agreement at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow has softened government requirements to reduce fossil fuel and coal use.

So as time goes on the deal is getting worse not better.

Go go fossil fuel companies. 2.4 degrees!

2 degrees means the extinction of all coral reefs on earth. (And loads of other shit)

 

[Embattle]

Cop26 ends in climate agreement despite India watering down coal resolution

Glasgow climate pact adopted despite last-minute intervention by India to water down language on phasing out dirtiest fossil fuel

www.theguardian.com

 

[Raven]

COPOUT26

Watered down as it leaves the starting blocks, will be further watered down and fought against now. Waste of time.